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

Re: Feedback on Process-20140801 section 5

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 14:16:17 +0200
To: public-w3process@w3.org, timeless@gmail.com
Message-ID: <op.xkk0dfs0y3oazb@chaals.local>
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 03:27:11 +0200, <timeless@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm sorry that I didn't send this feedback on [1] earlier, I've been  
> busy.
> {Section 5 Activities}

I'm sorry you spent your time on this section, which has been slated for  
removal for about 7 years. Because today I did the major work of stripping  
it out of the editor's draft.

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#chapterActivities

What's left are a few normative requirements that I don't want to simply  
remove without a formal resolution.

Thanks for the review though.

cheers

Chaals

>> This section describes the mechanisms for establishing consensus within  
>> the areas of Web development the Consortium chooses to pursue.
>
> This is the first instance of <the Consortium> to mean the W3C. The  
> abstract used <The mission of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)>, the  
> Introduction used <Consortium-wide>.
> I'd suggest using W3C.
>
>
>> W3C starts an Activity based on interest from the Members and Team.
>
> There are RFC words in this section, s/starts/should start/
>
>> W3C Members build interest around new work through discussions among  
>> Advisory Committee representatives, Chairs, and Team, and through the  
>> Submission process.
>
> s/build/should build/
>
>> The Team tracks Web developments inside and outside W3C, manages  
>> liaisons, and organizes Workshops.
>
> s/tracks/[must|should] track/ -- must is too strong for <outside> but  
> applies to the others, then please split into distinct must and should  
> statements.
>
>> Based on input from the Team and Members about the structure and scope  
>> of an Activity, the Team sends an Activity Proposal to the Advisory  
>> Committee.
>
> s/sends/should send/
>
>> This is a proposal to dedicate Team and Member resources to a  
>> particular area of Web technology or policy, and when there is  
>> consensus about the motivation, scope, and structure of the proposed  
>> work, W3C starts a new Activity.
>
> This is too long of a sentence. s/, and when/. When/
> If the previous s/starts/should start/ didn't apply then, it should here.
>
>
>> Each Activity has its own structure that generally includes Working  
>> Groups, Interest Groups, and Coordination Groups.
>
> s/has/should have/ ?
>
>> Within the framework of an Activity, these groups produce technical  
>> reports, review the work of other groups, and develop sample code or  
>> test suites.
>
> s/or/and/ ?
>
>
>> The progress of each Activity is documented in an Activity Statement.
>
> <is> -> rfc should/must?
>
>> Activity Statements describe the goals of the Activity, completed and  
>> unfinished deliverables, changing perspectives based on experience, and  
>> future plans.
>
> <describe> -> rfc
>
>> At least before each Advisory Committee meeting, the Team SHOULD revise  
>> the Activity Statement for each Activity that has not been closed.
>
> <At least before> is awkward. s/At least before/before/
> Feel free to add <Team MAY revise the Activity Statement for an Activity  
> at any other time.> If there are exceptions, they should be noted here.
>
>> Refer to the list of W3C Activities [PUB9].
>
> TEAM: PUB9 [2] does NOT list Activities at all. Which is really a  
> non-sequitor.
>
> -> Note: This list MAY include some Activities that began prior to the  
> formalization in 1997 of the Activity creation process.
>
> Since we're appparently updating the Process document, perhaps we should  
> change MAY to MUST as:
>
> -> Note: This list MUST include Activities that began prior to the  
> formalization in 1997 of the Activity creation process until they are  
> all closed (which MAY never happen).
>
>> The Team MUST notify the Advisory Committee when a proposal for a new  
>> or modified Activity is in development.
>> This is intended to raise awareness, even if no formal proposal is yet  
>> available.
>
> the <is> here is odd - it isn't rfc language.
>
>
>> After a Call for Review from the Director, the Advisory Committee  
>> reviews and comments on the proposal.
>
> s/reviews and comments/shall review and comment/
>
>
>> The Director announces to the Advisory Committee whether there is  
>> consensus within W3C to create or modify the Activity (possibly with  
>> changes suggested during the review).
>
> s/anounces/shall announce/
>
> This statement should indicate a timeframe relative to the expiration of  
> the timewindow for the review period, as in <which must be after the  
> review period expires> or <which must be within X time units of the  
> expiration of the review period>
>
>> For a new Activity, this announcement officially creates the Activity.
>
> I'm not a fan of <officially creates>, perhaps s/creates/starts/
>
>> Note: There is no appeal of a decision not to create an Activity; in  
>> general, drafting a new Activity Proposal will be simpler than  
>> following the appeal process.
>
> I'd rather <An AC rep should draft a new Activity Proposal if they want  
> an Activity to be created and it wasn't (as this is simpler than the  
> appeal process)>.
>
>
>> Context information. Why is this Activity being proposed now?
>> What is the situation in the world (e.g., with respect to the Web  
>> community, market, research, or society)? within the scope of the  
>> proposal?
>
> There's an embedded <?> in the middle of this sentence.
>
>> Is the community mature/growing/developing a niche?
>
> <mature> doesn't agree with <growing> and <developing> (<maturing> would)
> Is <a niche> distinct from <mature...developing>?
>
>> A description of the Activity's scope.
>> How might a potential Recommendation interact and overlap with existing  
>> international standards and Recommendations?
>
> What about other Activities/WGs within W3C?
>
>> What organizations are likely to be affected by potential overlap (see  
>> the section on liaisons with other organizations)?
>> What should be changed if the Activity is approved?
>
>
>> The duration of the Activity.
> ...
>> The expected timeline of the Activity, including proposed deliverable  
>> dates and scheduled Workshops and Symposia.
>
> It feels odd to me that duration and timeline are separated by another  
> line item.
>
>> What groups will be created as part of this Activity and how those  
>> groups will be coordinated. For each group, the proposal MUST include a  
>> provisional charter. Groups MAY be scheduled to run concurrently or  
>> sequentially (either because of a dependency or an expected overlap in  
>> membership and the desirability of working on one subject at a time).  
>> These charters MAY be amended based on review comments before the  
>> Director issues a Call for Participation.
> ...
>> If known, the date of the first face-to-face meeting of each proposed  
>> group. The date of the first face-to-face meeting of a proposed group  
>> MUST NOT be sooner than eight weeks after the date of the Activity  
>> Proposal.
>
> It feels odd to me that the two WG items are separated by another line  
> item.
>
>> Information about known dependencies within W3C or outside of W3C.
>
> s/within/both within/; s/or/and/‎
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801
> [2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/activities‎
>


-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2014 12:16:49 UTC

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