W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal]

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 22:36:24 -0700
Message-ID: <5271EC58.8030601@inkedblade.net>
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
CC: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, Advisory Board <ab@w3.org>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 10/30/2013 04:50 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
> Elika,
> I like your desire for simplicity, but as usual the devil is in the details, see below.

I'm good at details. Let's have at it. :)

>> Here is my alternative proposal...
>>
>> As of the official transition date chosen by the AB/AC/W3M/whoever:
>>
>>     1. Any spec in WD, CR, or REC is automatically transitioned into
>>        the new rules for WD/CR/REC, without republication or any WG
>>        action.
>
> SZ: Certainly any REC can move to the new process.

OK, no problem there.

> In principle, any WD also can move, but there clearer requirements
> (SHOULDs) that are intended to keep reviewers of the WDs more informed
> about what had changed so moving the the new process even for a WD may
> involve some extra work. This is a good thing, but is more work for
> publishing a next draft.

Doesn't seem like there's any problem there, just a little more care
has to be taken when publishing the next update to the WD.

> CR, however, is not easy to move to the new process because CR and
> PR are being parallelized in the new process and current CR specs
> have not had the done. The current suggestion is to let anything
> in CR finish under the existing process, hopefully without return
> to LC, etc.

I would prefer if specs in CR had the option to
   - either move to PR
   - or move to LCCR.
upon republication. This avoids trapping existing CRs in the old
process, particularly the really bad parts of it (having to return
to LC in order to make corrections in the CR).

>     2. Any spec in a transitional phase (LC/PR/PER) follows the current
>        process until it gets to its next stable phase (WD/CR/REC),
>        and from then on follows the new rules for WD/CR/REC.
>
> SZ: I would have to think more about the LC case, but since the next
> phase for PR and PER is REC, hopefully and, by experience, actually,
> this may be reasonable. The main caveat I would have would be that
> if for some reason a PR or PER is sent back to LC, then it should
> complete under the old process because there is no need to have the
> editor (and WG) learn a new process just to make the small updates
> that typically require an extra LC.

This doesn't really make much sense to me. If it needs to "go back to
LC" for some reason, it should just be shifted into LCCR and complete
from there.

> To me the main issue is when is the conversion to the new process
> to happen. There is a contingent that believes that a WG that is
> nearing completion on one or two documents ought to be allowed to
> complete that work under the process they currently understand.
> It is also recognized that there are groups, such as CSS, HTML5
> and WebApps, that have documents in a number of states and will
> just have to byte the bullet sometime. For these groups, I think
> you suggestions (with the caveats I raised) make sense.

I don't think there's any good justification for specs in WD to
be allowed to complete under the old process once W3C adopts the
new one.

There are reasons for taking a spec that is in a relatively stable
late-stage CR or beyond through the old process, and I'm fine with
that as described above: if you can complete without dropping into
LC/WD, then you complete under the old process. But if you need to
make edits that can't be made under CR, then I see no reason why
the document should not transition to LCCR instead of continuing
back to Working Draft under the old process.

So, updated proposal:

   1. Any spec in WD or REC is automatically transitioned into the
      new rules for WD/REC, without any WG action. The next publication
      (whatever phase that may be) will thus follow the new process.

   2. Any spec in a transitional phase (LC/PR/PER) follows the current
      process until it gets to its next stable phase (WD/CR/REC),
      and from then on follows the new rules for WD/CR/REC.

   3. Any spec in CR has three transitions available:
        - move to PR, if it is ready, and complete from there
        - republish as CR under the new rules
          [this combines the old LC/CR options for handling
           substantive/editorial edits]
        - move back to WD, if it needs substantially more work

Thoughts?

~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2013 05:36:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:09 UTC