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

RE: New draft

From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 18:19:06 +0000
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>
CC: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6c567ea7b4fb4a46846ca693cb132612@BY2PR02MB426.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
On behalf of my participation in the Task Force, I am OK with all the changes Charles agreed to and with his suggested replacement where he did not agree.

Steve Z

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru] 
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 10:07 AM
To: Ralph Swick
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
Subject: Re: New draft

On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 05:59:34 -0800, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org> wrote:

> Thanks Chaals.
>
> I did one more quick-ish top-to-bottom read.  From that I have the 
> following small suggestions:

Thank you. I consider all the changes as purely editorial, and I have the following proposals to address them. I will incorporate them in a draft, and the TF can object to the changes if they want.

I expect to post the draft tonight, while posting the current draft to the AB this morning (for consideration as their proposal to the AC) with a note that these changes may be made.

> 7.1 W3C Technical Reports, second paragraph:
>
>   "If /+the Director determines that+/ W3C member review
>    /-agrees that-//+supports+/ a specification
>    /-should be-//+becoming+/ a Standard..."
>
> The important change here is the first one; not removing the final 
> decision from the Director.  The other changes are just grammar to 
> make the sentence less awkward.

Agreed.

> 7.1.2 Maturity Levels, CR, second Note:
>
>   "Candidate Recommendations /-will normally be accepted as-/
>   /+are expected to eventually become+/ Recommendations."
>
> Reduce the risk of misinterpretation of this sentence as "the outcome 
> is predetermined."

The outcome ought to be close to predetermined. There are two sides to the issue - the Working Group should have made their CR good enough to be a Rec, and people better get their final review done if they haven't already, or they really will lose their opportunity.

How about "are expected to be acceptable as"?

In particular I don't want the "eventually" (it reads too closely to "maybe sometime in some form" in native english, and "accidentally" in non-native english).

> 7.2.3.1 Wide Review, first sentence:
>
>    "... by the /-p-//+W3C P+/rocess."

Agreed.

> Explicit reference.  (Lowercase "process" includes an aggregation of 
> existing and future best practices, etc. which may eventually lead to 
> more precision.)
>
>
> 7.5 Proposed Recommendation, a Working Group, 3rd bullet:
>
>    "... other than by Advisory Committee representatives /+acting in
>    their formal AC representative role+/ ..."
>
> I understand the intent of this exception to be that an issue raised 
> by an AC Rep as part of formal AC Review is meant to be a comment to 
> the Director, which the Director may discuss further.  An AC Rep may 
> also be a participant in a Working Group or may submit a comment to 
> the Working Group as part of public review.  Such comments should not 
> be treated differently just because the commenter has another formal role.

Agreed

> 7.6 W3C Recommendation, first sentence:
>
>   "/+The decision to advance a document to Recommendation is a
>
> [http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/acreview.html#def-w3c-deci

> sion W3C decision].+/  In addition to meeting ..."
>
> This formalism from the current Process section 7.4.5 binds to the 
> formal definition of AC Review, appeal, etc.

Agreed

> 7.8 Publishing a Working Group or Interest Group Note, final sentence:
>
>   "Working Group Notes/-, only for W3C Recommendations-/."
>
> This additional statement is unnecessary here and it creates the risk 
> of future conflict if the Patent Policy is revised to cover other things.

Indeed. Agreed.

cheers

> -Ralph
>
> On 2/20/2014 5:55 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> there is another draft dated 20 February. The only change is to add 
>> an explicit requirement for the director to announce the publication 
>> of a revised Candidate Recommendation.
>>
>> As far as I know there are no outstanding comments or issues, so I 
>> hope we will resolve to present this draft to the AB as our 
>> recommendation for a new Chapter 7.
>>
>> The draft is https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/7b98193bc9d9/tr.html

>> and the changelog is at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/

>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Chaals
>>
>


--
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com


Received on Monday, 3 March 2014 18:19:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:10 UTC