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

Feedback on Process-20140801 section 1

From: <timeless@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:42:03 -0400
Message-ID: <20140812224203.25579611.14279.1972@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 1 Introduction}

> To accomplish this work, W3C follows processes that promote the development of high-quality standards based on the consensus of the Membership, Team, and public.

I know <public> means "the general public", but it feels weird, because it isn't written as "the general public", nor "the public", and while someone might be able to expand "the <Membership, Team, and public>" to "the Membership, the Team, and the public", my parser refused.


> The W3C process for producing these technical reports includes significant review by the Members and public, and requirements that the Working Group be able to show implementation and interoperability experience.

Too many ands, too many thoughts.
The spread of things is also annoying, again, "the <Members and public>" -> "the Members and the public", but also "<implementation and interoperability> experience"
Way too complicated


> describe other interactions between the Members (as represented by the W3C Advisory Committee), the Team, and the general public.

Here someone wrote out <the Members, the Team, and the general public>
c.f. earlier complaints about style. Please use this style in the earlier places (and any other places)


> W3C processes promote fairness, responsiveness, and progress: all facets of the W3C mission.
^ this feels like it's missing <aim to> before <promote>
^ the colon is odd. perhaps s/all/all of these are|all being/ ?
or is it saying "promote fairness, responsiveness, progress, and all the other facets of the w3c mission" ?


> This document describes the processes W3C follows in pursuit of its mission.
^ describes is weak. since I'm assuming the document is generally normative
... perhaps "defines" (clearly "this document documents" is not a good idea, too bad)


> Here is a general overview of how W3C standardizes a Web technology. In many cases, the goal of this work is a W3C Recommendation, the W3C equivalent of a Web standard.

Is the goal "a w3c recommendation" or "the publication of a w3c recommendation" ?
I don't think "the w3c equivalent of a web standard" is what it means.
I think it's "the w3c equivalent of a standard for the web".
Because I don't think there are any other bodies that create a "Web standard" for which the w3c can provide an equivalence.


> Also, W3C is likely to organize a Workshop to bring people together to discuss topics that interest the W3C community.

That's awkward...
Generally a workshop brings people to talk about a single topic-focus-area, not just "topics that interest"
-> W3C organizes workshops on topics that interest the W3C community. In the case of Web services, W3C organized a workshop on that.


> When there is enough interest in a topic (e.g., after a successful Workshop and/or discussion on an Advisory Committee mailing list)

I tend to think of there as only being <one> AC ML
I acknowledge that there are two lists, but the first one isn't for discussion, so it clearly isn't the one being referenced. It should directly reference the single correct list, or at least implicate that there's precisely one correct list if it just wants to defer to the other document to identify it.


> the Director announces the development of a proposal for a new Activity or Working Group charter, depending on the breadth of the topic of interest.

If the Director isn't announcing a new activity, is the WG added to an existing activity? (that'd be nice to note)


> establish two permanent groups within W3C: the Technical Architecture Group (TAG), to help resolve Consortium-wide technical issues; and the Advisory Board (AB), to help resolve Consortium-wide non-technical issues, and to manage the evolution of the W3C process, and

Since this is a revised version of the document, isn't it odd for it to claim that it establishes these pre-existing groups?
Wouldn't it be more accurate for it to say something like "defines the current structure of" or something

‎
[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 22:42:32 UTC

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