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

Re: 2014 Process: WD -> CR difficulties

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 18:00:35 -0400
Message-ID: <542C7983.2040603@w3.org>
To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
CC: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>

You've already gotten some great input on the list.  I have but a few 
additional thoughts.  Hope it helps.


On 10/1/2014 9:01 AM, Nigel Megitt wrote:
> Process folk:
> TTWG has chosen to adopt the 2014 process for all its recommendation track
> products in development. I understand that we're about to go through this
> process first of all working groups.
> Recent Experience
> -----------------
> We recently wanted to transition one document to CR, but were advised that
> the requirements for getting to CR are the same as they were for exiting
> LC previously; yet without an LC we didn't have a clearly defined
> mechanism for meeting those requirements. Specifically the need to
> demonstrate wide review seemed to be vague, and triggered a "we aren't
> sure what view the Director will take" response from staff, which, while
> true, wasn't ideal for them or us.

This is understood.  I expect that we will learn more from experience.  
I wouldn't say that getting to CR are the same as exiting LC.  We are 
trying to provide more flexibility to Chairs to determine what "wide 
review" makes sense for their WG.

> We chose to issue a new WD and put out as big a call for review as
> possible. But there's been quite a bit of debate about how the process
> could assist here.

Here is an interesting test for TTML specifically.  In Section 3.3 of 
the TTML Charter you list external groups that should care about the 
spec, e.g. SMPTE.  So you might ask yourselves whether the call for 
review that you sent out as a minimum reached such external groups (as 
well as internal) that you care about.

> What in the process caused the problem?
> ---------------------------------------
> The 2014 process has streamlined the LC -> CR -> LC -> CR -> ... process
> to make it quicker and less painful by removing LC, which is great, but
> seems not not to have fully addressed WD -> CR.
> Previously, WD -> LC -> CR was a set of clearly defined (or at least well
> understood) steps that were each manageable.
> Now, WD -> CR is a much bigger step; the requirements for entering CR
> haven't changed but the opportunity for meeting those requirements has
> been elided.
> What can be done to mitigate the problem?
> -----------------------------------------
> If we want to keep the benefits of the current process then it would be a
> good idea to clarify exactly what is needed to go from WD to CR and how it
> can be achieved.
> Here are a couple of non-mutually-incompatible suggestions to mitigate
> this from being a more widespread problem across other groups, hopefully
> without adding significant delay or complexity:
> 	1. Offer the possibility (rather than a requirement) of a "Last" label
> for a Working Draft, which is still a WD, but one that groups wish to
> signal is intended for transition to CR next.

I believe that we have said explicitly that individual WGs and Chairs 
have the flexibility to replicate the old Last Call if they feel that is 
useful for their groups.

> 	2. Create an independent "wide review" process step that may be applied
> to any document (in WD or CR) for use whenever wide review may be
> required; recommend that this is executed at least once on at least one WD
> prior to requesting transition to CR, and that if there's significant
> change between the wide review and the version that's being transitioned
> to CR then continued review needs to be demonstrated.
> Have we missed anything?
> ------------------------
> Is there anything in the process that we should have used to alleviate
> this problem, but maybe missed?
> Are there other suggestions for how to make WD -> CR as pain-free as
> possible?

Tough question and a tough call.  We were deliberate in wanting to add 
flexibility to groups to progress as they see fit and not be locked into 
a stepwise process.  The suggestion to start collecting best practices 
might be the best way to make it descriptive, if not prescriptive.

> Kind regards,
> Nigel
> Co-chair, TTWG
> On 01/10/2014 13:31, "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org> wrote:
>> On Oct 1, 2014, at 7:29 AM, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>> If we don't ask the public/W3C groups/External group to review the
>>>>> latest WD version (the one before entering CR) , I don't see how the
>>>>> director will be satisfied with a review done on former WD documents
>>>>> which are obsolete.
>>>> I think a heads up to the chairs is a fine idea. But the AB wanted to
>>>> leave groups greater freedom in how they get review.
>>> Your response does not respond to the above issue,it is not a matter
>>> about heads up to the chairs, the issue is about the WD version that
>>> needs to get wide review on. Would a former review on a obsolete version
>>> satisfy the Director ?
>> I do not know for all possible cases. Suppose you published a draft "LC -
>> 1" that was mostly stable and got lots of review, then did an update and
>> got review from someone new on the changes. Would that satisfy the
>> Director? My guess is yes.
>> Ian
>> --
>> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>> Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2014 22:00:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:12 UTC