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

Re: 2014 Process: WD -> CR difficulties

From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 08:43:10 +0000
To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, "Wayne Carr" <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D0541DE6.12C86%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
On 02/10/2014 17:51, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)"
<Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:

>We can make the list public, but we can't make the necessary people
>subscribe to the list.
>The AB and/or the Process CG discussed this in some depth while
>deliberating the 2014 process.  My recollection of the consensus was that
>-- consistent with the spirit of the new process philosophy -- the
>Process Document doesn't describe a machine that you crank to put out
>Recommendations, it describes *what*criteria a spec must pass to become a
>Recommendation.  *How* that happens can be optimized by specific WGs and
>Chairs to work in the actual environment they live in.

That's not a process then, it's a set of what some call "stage gates" with
verification steps. The document should be renamed to avoid creating
misleading expectations and make obvious the change in philosophy.

Google "define: process"


	1. a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wayne Carr [mailto:wayne.carr@linux.intel.com]
>Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2014 9:43 AM
>To: Arthur Barstow; public-w3process
>Cc: Nigel Megitt
>Subject: Re: 2014 Process: WD -> CR difficulties
>On 2014-10-02 04:30, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> On 10/1/14 3:21 PM, Wayne Carr wrote:
>>> There could be a Call for Review public mail list.
>> Agree [and it might even be useful if the `right` people subscribe ;-)].
>> In case you did not know, the [chairs] list is already used to: 1)
>> make FPWD transition requests [rarely do these fail]; 2) announce LC
>> publications + explicit  RfC from specific group(s); 3) make CR
>> transition requests. It would be helpful (vis-à-vis toward getting
>> early and wide review) if all three of these (plus ProcDoc-2014 now
>> effectively mandates a "RfC for pre-CRs") were announced on a Public
>> list.
>> Unfortunately, the chairs list is Member-confidential and I suspect
>> subscriber membership is controlled by consortium staff (i.e. I don't
>> think it is an  auto-subscribe-able list by Joe Public). I would be
>> delighted if everything on that list was automagically forwarded to a
>> Public list. However, I suspect typical Public vs. Member
>> confidentiality stop energy would prevent that :-(.
>Can W3C staff just make this list?
>public-wg-call-for-review@w3.org or public-wg-rfc@w3c.org
>- posts should only be from WG Chairs and W3C Staff
>- notices:
>    + Staff sends announcements at: transition requests, "last call"
>publications - FPWD and the CRs that have substantive changes or Last
>Call (under the old process), notice that work is underway on a charter
>    + WG Chairs send RfC on anything the WG would like feedback on or
>that they would like to tell the public.  e.g. want review on a
>particular section, notice that a section is considered stable
>This could just be done and WGs use it as they see fit and the process
>could later mandate it (if that was wanted).  In the meantime, it would
>be something WGs and W3C staff could use as a way of asking for reviews
>or making general announcements on spec development.
>> (WRT `the tools will save us`, if WG charter deliverables included
>> some type of "interestedGroup" property, then it seems like at least
>> some notifications could be automated.)
>> -AB
>> [chairs] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/


Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 08:43:45 UTC

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