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

Re: Draft for Last Call

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:41:55 -0700
Message-ID: <53278843.9060203@linux.intel.com>
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Suggestions for a few clarifications (not essential - just a few 
improved wording suggestions).  The chapter looks very good.

1. Section 7.1
"If the Director determines that W3C member review supports a 
specification becoming a Standard, W3C publishes it as a Recommendation."

Suggest:
"If the Director determines that W3C member review supports a 
specification becoming a standard, W3C publishes it as a W3C 
Recommendation."

Reason: "Standard" isn't capitalized elsewhere.  Capital "S" Standard 
isn't defined anywhere.  Also add "W3C" before recommendation because 
that's how it's referred to immediately above and it reduces confusion 
by having specification, standard and recommendation in the same 
sentence - by clearly indicating W3C Recommendation is a special state.

2. Section 7.2.2
"Because the requirements for First Public Working Drafts are fairly 
mechanical, approval is normally fairly automatic. For later stages, 
especially transition to Candidate or Proposed Recommendation, there is 
generally a formal review meeting to ensure the requirements have been 
met before Director's approval is given.  Note that for a First Public 
Working Draft there is no "previous maturity level"."

Suggest:
"For a First Public Working Draft there is no "previous maturity level", 
so many requirements do not apply and approval is normally fairly 
automatic.  For later stages, especially transition to Candidate or 
Proposed Recommendation, there is generally a formal review meeting to 
ensure the requirements have been met before Director's approval is given.

Reason: In the current text, it isn't clear why the requirements are 
"mechanical".  It's because most of them are about documenting things 
that happened since a previous maturity level so they don't apply.  
Theproposed  changes combines wording from the two sentences about FPWD 
and moves them together.  I think that's clearer.

3. Section 7.2.4 Wide Review

Not suggesting a change to the text - but may want to create a single, 
public W3C-wide call for reviews mail list to announce requests for 
reviews.  Otherwise, how does a WG let the general public know it wants 
a review of some particular section?  There could be  list that only has 
announcements of calls for review - no ability to respond to that list 
so people could subscribe and see all W3C requests for draft reviews.  
Currently, some WGs go to Last Call probably too early to let people 
know they really want review - should be a list where they can say they 
really want review (and it is just for requests so the request doesn't 
get buried in other mail - maybe only chairs can post to it).

4. Section 7.7.2
"Editorial changes to a Recommendation require no technical review of 
the proposed changes. "

Suggest:
"Editorial changes" should like to section 7.2.5 which defines 
"editorial changes".
Same for "substantive changes" in the next paragraph.

5. Section 7.8
"This includes supporting documentation for a specification such as 
explanations of design principles or use cases and requirements, 
non-normative guides to good practices, as well as specifications where 
work has been stopped and there is no longer interest in making them a 
new standard."

Suggest:
"This includes supporting documentation for a specification such as 
explanations of design principles or use cases and requirements, 
non-normative guides to good practices, as well as specifications where 
work has been stopped and there is no longer consensus for making them a 
new standard."

Reason:
There may be strong interest from some, but not consensus.  change 
"interest in" to "consensus for".








On 3/9/2014 5:03 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> Hi,
>
> following the AB meeting, and incorporation of the last editorial 
> comments, I have produced a draft for the AB to check and hopefully 
> approve as a Last Call (to be proposed incorporated into a full 
> version of the Process Document).
>
> The document is at 
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/13a947c0bdc9/tr.html and changes 
> are detailed at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
Received on Monday, 17 March 2014 23:42:28 UTC

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