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

Re: Can we discuss ISSUE-137 (rationalise heartbeats) please

From: David (Standards) Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 13:50:42 -0700
Cc: "chaals@yandex-team.ru" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <D4825220-13B8-474D-B4CA-B5F59D244525@apple.com>
To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
I think that the heartbeat requirement needs to be generalized into two requirements:

* make progress
* demonstrate progress in public

If you have a public working style with constant updates, you satisfy this.  If you decide to operate in member space, you may need to think about it.  If you have documents that remain incomplete and unchanged for long periods, you might also want to think about this.

Heartbeat assumed member-space development.  That’s not true for many xG’s these days.

But as we have seen with the ‘wide review’ requirement, relaxing the requirement means we are also giving less guidance and less assistance.  We should think about the good aspects of train tracks as well as the bad ones.  Yes, they constrain you to a specific direction, but yes, that means there is one less thing to think about.


On Oct 6, 2014, at 9:35 , Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:

>> I propose we remove section 6.2.7 Working Group "Heartbeat" Requirement.
> 
> DL;DR - fix it don't kill it
> 
> In my mind this is tied up with the "graveyard of /TR" issue (there's probably a politically correct name/number I forget).  The high order bit for me is to ensure that what is in /TR reflects the WG's current state of consensus about what is being worked on in editors drafts.  Publishing a shapshot of the editor's draft every n months doesn't help anyone, but motivating chairs to regularly assess stability, consensus, implementation, etc. status and ensure that reality is reflected in the /TR version of a spec should address some of the real issues that have come up in the Living Standards perma-debate.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: chaals@yandex-team.ru [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru] 
> Sent: Monday, October 6, 2014 7:55 AM
> To: Revising W3C Process Community Group
> Subject: Can we discuss ISSUE-137 (rationalise heartbeats) please
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think ISSUE-137 is very low hanging fruit. Can we open it and put it on the next agenda please?
> 
> TL;DR: I propose we remove section 6.2.7 Working Group "Heartbeat" Requirement.
> 
> Details:
> As written it requires groups to publish *something* every 3 months. Given that most groups make editors' drafts publicly available, and work on a public mailing list, the requirement to prove they are still doing something is redundant.
> 
> In addition the mechanism is redundant, since the current process includes, in chapter 7, a requirement that groups SHOULD publish new Working Drafts when there has been a significant change - or every six months where that hasn't happened.
> 
> The most significant change in practice would be making the Process about 1.5% shorter (based on the current draft).
> 
> cheers
> 
> Chaals
> 
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
> 
> 

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 6 October 2014 20:51:11 UTC

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