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

Re: Draft [transition-request] PR for the W3C Process Document (revised)

From: steve <steve@zilles.org>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 16:47:15 -0700
Message-ID: <yi6scei82n8nk0p1bdsm9k78.1398987129689@email.android.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Cc: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, ab@w3.org, public-w3process@w3.org
David,
The second Last Call review period completed on April 21. This request is a
transition - request to PR which is the beginning of the AC review.That is the next step in the Process. Assuming the AC review is positive, that is when the new Process would become The Process. And, actually, there has been little change in the document since March.

Steve Zilles
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: David Singer <singer@apple.com> 
Date:05/01/2014  13:39  (GMT-08:00) 
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> 
Cc: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, ab@w3.org, public-w3process@w3.org 
Subject: Re: Draft [transition-request] PR for the W3C Process Document  (revised) 

Yes, please

I would expect something to appear in a questionnaire on all AC’s reps list, labeled as stable for a well-defined review period.

This has been in a state of flux that it’s been hard to know ‘when to review’.  This looks like the kind of signal that we say we need for technical specs.


And indeed, it’s not published until we all agree to adopt (which, I suggest, is a further questionnaire, possible asking for up/down voting rather than review comments)

On May 1, 2014, at 10:32 , Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote:

> Comments inline below
> Steve Z
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ralph Swick [mailto:swick@w3.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 6:13 AM
> > To: Stephen Zilles; Tim Berners-Lee
> > Cc: ab@w3.org; public-w3process@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Draft [transition-request] PR for the W3C Process Document
> > (revised)
> >
> > On 5/1/2014 12:12 AM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
> > > All,
> > >
> > > The Advisory Board and its Process Document Task Force would like to
> > > request the transition to PR of
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >     Title
> > >
> > >         World Wide Web Consortium Process Document
> > >
> > >     URL
> > >
> > >         http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/
> > >
> > >     Editors' draft
> > >
> > >         https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html
> >
> > We should snapshot this to someplace else for the AC review.
> [SZ] We also need to update the First Paragraph of the Status section to say this is the draft for AC Review (and remove the this is the draft for AB review) For example (assuming a 6 May publication date),
> "This draft of the W3C Process Document is presented for Advisory Committee Review and adoption by the W3C. This document has been produced following the W3C Advisory Committee "last call" review of the proposed update to the W3C Process. It incorporates editorial changes to Chapter 7 and a proposed resolution of Issue-95. A Public Issue Tracker and detailed changelogs are available online.
>  
> W3C Advisory Committee Members are invited to send formal review comments to the W3C Team until 2 June 2014. Comments should be made using the Call for Review WBS form. To comment, aside from Advisory Committee comments, send email to the Revising W3C Process Community Group (Mailing list archive, publicly available) or to process-issues@w3.org (Member-only archive).”
>  
> > I propose www.w3.org/2014/05/Process-20140506
> >
> > I am happy to help make that happen.
> [SZ] This is fine with me
> >
> > And somewhat contrary to our practice for Technical Reports I propose that we
> > not change the version at /Consortium/Process until a new Process has been
> > adopted.
> [SZ] I completely agree.
> >
> > -Ralph
> >
> >
> > >     Proposed publication date: Tuesday, 6 May 2014
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >     Abstract
> > >
> > > The mission of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is to lead the
> > > World Wide Web to its full potential by developing common protocols
> > > that promote its evolution and ensure its interoperability. The W3C
> > > Process Document describes the organizational structure of the W3C and
> > > the processes related to the responsibilities and functions they
> > > exercise to enable W3C to accomplish its mission. This document does
> > > not describe the internal workings of the Team or W3C's public
> > communication mechanisms.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For more information about the W3C mission and the history of W3C,
> > > please refer to About W3C <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/> [PUB15].
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Record of the decision to request the transition
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > WBS Ballot: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/7756/ProcessDoc/results
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Report of important changes to the document
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > There has been some editorial clarification, but no significant
> > > changes were made since the Last Call. See
> > > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/rev/41f97f342b7d for details of these changes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The major changes made to Chapter 7 since the 2005 version of the Process
> > Document are listed in the Status Section of the (revised) document:
> > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#status .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Evidence that the document satisfies group's requirements
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Almost three years ago, the Advisory Board began looking for ways to
> > > make
> > >
> > > specification development more agile. In the November 2012 TPAC
> > > Meeting, the Advisory Board realized that some of the major issues
> > > related to agility were in the complexity of Last Call, Candidate
> > > Recommendation and Proposed Recommendation. Because these are
> > > completely specified in Chapter 7 of the current W3C Process, we have
> > > focused on the requirements that can be addressed in a modified
> > > Chapter 7. The remaining process issues (those not directly related to
> > > Chapter 7) have been tabled until a future revision of the W3C Process.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Evidence that dependencies with other groups met
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > There are no recorded dependencies with other groups.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Evidence that the document has received wide review
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > This was the second Last Call. The previous one had over 75 comments
> > > whose resolution is documented in
> > > http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues
> > >
> > > (those with Document Life Cycle (ch 7) as the "Product")
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Evidence that issues have been formally addressed
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > There were no comments received on the final Last Call document, but
> > > during the Last Call period, there were comments received on a prior
> > > version of the document. These comments have been addressed or issues
> > > (deferred to a future update to the Process Document) have been raised.
> > > See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
> > w3process/2014Apr/0034.html .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Objections
> > >
> > > ----------
> > >
> > > There were no objections.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Implementation information
> > >
> > > --------------------------
> > >
> > > The implementation plan is described at the end of the message
> > > announcing the final Last Call:
> > > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2014JanMar/0138.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Patent disclosures
> > >
> > > ------------------
> > >
> > > Patents are not relevant to this document.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Steve Zilles
> > >
> > > Chair, AB Process Document Task Force
> > >
> > >
> > >

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2014 23:47:37 UTC

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