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

Re: Comments on 23 September Editor's Draft of Chapter 7

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 04:27:10 +0200
To: "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.w31s3knqy3oazb@chaals.local>
Hi Ian,

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 03:11:23 +0200, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:

> Charles,
>
> Today I had the pleasure of reviewing:
>
>   Recommendation Track Process, draft proposal
>   Editors' Draft 23 September 2013
>   https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/tr.html
>
> I have a few comments, divided into non-editorial and editorial.

Thanks...

> ==================
> Non-Editorial
>
>  * 7.4.1.a and 7.4.1.b: "Publishing the First Public Working Draft
>    triggers a patent disclosure request,"
>
>    Please change this to "Publishing the First Public Working Draft
>    triggers a Call for Exclusions" and refer to section 4 of the
>    policy.

Will do...

>    Here's an example of one:
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Sep/0028
>
>  * 7.5: "A document published as a Working Group Note does not imply
>    any licensing requirements, unless work is resumed and it is
>    subsequently published as a W3C Recommendation. " This comes
>    close to sounding like an IPR rule. Please delete.

I'd rather keep it there, and clarify that it is the case because of the  
Patent Policy, not something in the Process Document.

>  * 7.6.1
>
>    a) "An errata page MAY include both proposed and normative
>    corrections. The Working Group MUST clearly identify which
>    corrections are proposed and which are normative." I think this is
>    a bug. The corrections only become normative once included in the
>    specification. I suggest deleting the sentences.

Agreed.

>    b) Please delete all the text related to "Call for Review of
>    Proposed Corrections." This bit of process has never been used
>    and the odds that it will be are very low.

Yeah, I agree.

(The last two bits come from reinstating the current document text. I'd  
meant to suggest something along similar lines, so thanks for teasing it  
out for me :) ).

> ==================
> Editorial

I'll look at these later...

Thanks for the feedback. I may work on the document on the weekend, but  
otherwise probably not until Tuesday. I expect to have a revised draft  
sometime next week. Please watch for changes (obviously, if there is  
follow-up discussion here I'll take that into account too).

cheers

Chaals

>  * 7.2.2 Wide review. I think the second paragraph, while useful,
>  should live outside the process in a resource called "Considerations
>  when evaluating wide review of a Recommendation Track Document" or  
> something
>  less pompous.
>
>  In the first paragraph of that section, the last two sentences have
>  some duplication. Here's a proposed merging:
>
>   "Before approving transitions, the Director will consider how well
>   the group communicated the review opportunity, who actually reviewed
>   the document and provided comments &mdash; especially groups
>   identified as dependencies in the charter, and how the group
>   responded to reviews."
>
>  * 7.2.2. "four weeks, ." weird punctuation.
>
>  * 7.2.3. "Worthy ideas should be recorded even when not incorporated
>    into a mature document." Suggest instead:
>
>     "The Working Group SHOULD record substantive proposals even when
>     not incorporated into a mature document."
>
>    First idea is to identify the subject. Also, "worthy" sounds a bit
>    to judgmental to my ear. But I don't feel too strongly about it.
>
>  * 7.4: "The Director must inform the Advisory Committee and group
>    Chairs when a technical report has been refused permission to
>    advance in maturity level and returned to a Working Group for
>    further work."
>
>    Elsewhere you refer to WG requests. I would propose that the
>    language here say that the Director has declined the request.
>    I think that the use of such language would clarify the protocol.
>    So here:
>
>    "The Director must inform the Advisory Committee and group Chairs
>    when he declines a request to advance in maturity level and
>    returns it to a Working Group for further work."
>
>    There are other instances of "permission" in the document. My proposal
>    is that the Group issues the request and the Director either approves
>    or declines the request.
>
>  * 7.4.1.a: "A working group should publish a Working Draft to the W3C
>    Technical Reports page every 6 months, or sooner when there have
>    been significant changes to the document that would benefit from
>    review from beyond the Working Group."
>
>    I suggest putting that at the beginning of the next section instead,
>    which is about revising WDs.
>
>  * 7.4.5: " W3C Recommendation normally retains its status forever."
>    However in 7.5 you write: " A technical report may remain a Working
>    Group Note indefinitely". I like the use of "indefinitely" and
>    recommend that formulatino in 7.4.5.
>
>  * There is some inconsistent uppercase usage for Director, Working  
> Group,
>    Working Draft.
>
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                                          +1 718 260 9447
>
>
>
>


-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 02:27:42 UTC

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