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

Re: 2014 Process: WD -> CR difficulties

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 08:58:50 -0400
Message-ID: <542D4C0A.3000804@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>

On 10/2/2014 5:14 AM, Nigel Megitt wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> Thanks for the additional points. Some have simple answers, happily.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 01/10/2014 23:00, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Nigel,
>>
>> You've already gotten some great input on the list.  I have but a few
>> additional thoughts.  Hope it helps.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> 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.
> As a chair, I need to be clear what decisions I should be making vs what
> the group should be making. In 7.2.3.1 of the 2014 Process it says "The
> requirements for wide review are not precisely defined by the W3C Process"
> and it describes the objective of the review, and indeed that the Director
> will consider the review, but it does *not* say who should define the
> review requirements for a specific document. If the intention is that this
> should be the chair, I'd go along with that, and suggest an edit along the
> lines of:
>
> 	The requirements for wide review are not precisely defined by the W3C
> Process.
>
> becomes
>
> 	The requirements for wide review are not precisely defined by the W3C
> Process, and SHOULD be defined by the Group Chair.
>
> Alternatively, the Working Group itself could take the action for defining
> the requirements, I suppose.

OK, I've raised an issue for the Process 2015 document.

>
> I don't mind if the Director chooses to take this decision process into
> account as part of considering the review: I guess the outcome is more
> important than the process for the Director in this case.
>
> If such an edit is not feasible then guidance that groups or chairs should
> define the requirements for wide review explicitly as a pre-transition
> step should be written down somewhere.
>
>>> 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.
> We've already started on contacting external groups, and even left
> ourselves extra time in the review period to take into account that it's
> typically slower to send external bodies than W3C groups. We sent the
> internal W3C notices first simply because it was quicker to do so.
>
> A question arising here is the status of the liaisons [1] - even if
> they're not on the group's charter it seems like it might be a good idea
> to contact many of them. There's no algorithm for determining which bodies
> to contact, though there does seem to be some metadata. Each
> organisation's "W3C Activities affected" are listed, and each
> Group/document has an overlap with a set of activities. So we could make
> the wide review "wide" by finding the set of all groups which have an
> "activity affected" that is also affected by the document. In the case of
> IMSC 1 that results in 2 (Timed Text) + 7 (Web and TV) + 29 (WAI) = 38. It
> sounds like a lot. Maybe the metadata isn't sufficiently fine-grained to
> support this kind of query.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison.html
>   
>>>
>>> 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.
> I can not find this in the Process document. Maybe it's another example
> where flexibility exists but, being unstated, is non-obvious, especially
> to relatively new chairs.
>
>
>>> 	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 Thursday, 2 October 2014 12:58:59 UTC

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