W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > August 2014

Feedback on Process-20140801 section 15

From: <timeless@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:39:54 -0400
Message-ID: <20140812223954.25579611.7551.1969@gmail.com>
To: public-w3process@w3.org
I'm sorry that I didn't send this feedback on [8] earlier, I've been busy. 
‎
I sent notes about ProcessTransition2014 [1], Ian has made some changes [2] to it in response.
‎
{Section 15 Changes}
> Working groups should document known implementation and must document expected next steps for all publications
Please add an <s> to implementation
Please change <all publications> to <each publication> ?

> * If W3C closes a Working Group, W3C must republish its unfinished work as Notes.
-> * If W3C closes a Working Group, W3C must republish the group's unfinished work as Notes.

Please incorporate the changes to the changes section as made in [2].


> Recognition that Interest Groups may publish W3C Notes
--> Interest Groups may (now) publish W3C Notes


> Advisory Committee review now begins at the same time as Candidate recommendation, but still ends no less than 4 weeks after publication as a Proposed Recommendation.

This is almost TL;DR (fails list form)
"Candidate Recommendation" should that R be capitalized?
(it isn't as I quoted it...)


> Implementation requirements for passing beyond Candidate Recommendation are not simply listed as "2 interoperable implementations", instead a new sections gives guidance on what is considered when assessing "adequate implementation experience".

Again, totally out of that nice someone-should-<act>
Probably: C..R.. implementation requirements change from <...> to a new section with guidance <link>

Can I ask for links in other bullets too? :)


> Instead of relying on a Last Call publication for adequate review Working Groups need to demonstrate "wide review" as part of the requirements to publish a spec as Candidate Recommendation, while leaving them to achieve this as they see fit.

Insert <,> after <review>


> There is a stronger emphasis (without formal requirements) on getting review and testing implementation as early as possible. How to do this is left to Working Groups to determine.

+<s> for implementation‎
Probably -<s> on Groups w/ s/left to/left to each/‎



[1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/ProcessTransition2014
[2] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=ProcessTransition2014&diff=75757&oldid=75351
[3] http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#tr-end
[4] https://www.w3.org/Member/promotion#logos
[5] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/Member-Agreement#also-consortium
[6] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/Member-Agreement#arbitration
[7] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/Member-Agreement
[8] ‎http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2014 22:40:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:11 UTC