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

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

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 14:12:51 -0700
Message-ID: <543305D3.7020302@linux.intel.com>
To: public-w3process@w3.org

On 2014-10-06 09:35, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) 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.

Editor's drafts could reflected consensus, stability, implementation, 
whether added on a whim by the editor and no formal standing.  Section 
Status could track WG decisions, where changes automatically revert the 
section to pending WG review or something like that.

In the patent policy, TRs determines licensing commitments when a Member 
quits the WG.

I think the Heartbeat requirement should be dropped.   In general, lack 
of progress can be considered in recharter reviews on whether to 
continue work on a spec or the whole WG, but we don't need to mandate it 
in the Process.

> -----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
Received on Monday, 6 October 2014 21:13:22 UTC

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