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

Re: 2014 Process Regresses Editorial Revision of RECs

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:57:39 -0700
Message-ID: <543ED1B3.6070304@linux.intel.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>

On 2014-10-15 09:58, fantasai wrote:
> We have 4 classes of changes:
>   1. Formatting
>   2. Editorial (no potential effects on conformance)
>   3. Substantive (may affect conformance) but not new features
>   4. New features
>
> In the 2005 Process, class 1 & 2 changes could be made to a REC by
> merely republishing it (as REC). In the 2014 Process, class 2
> editorial changes require cycling through PR.
>
> Compare:
>   Old - http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-modify
>   New - http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#revised-rec
>
> Here is the changeset that made this change:
>   https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/rev/fd1d11321989
> Here is the issue cited in the changeset log:
>   http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/95
> According to the issue, the changes were supposedly editorial, and
> there was no discussion of the justification for or impact of adding
> this extra PR cycle.
>
> Since I don't see any reason to make this more complicated than it
> was in the 2014 Process, I would like to see this change reverted.

This is supposed to be "Editorial changes or clarifications that do not 
change the technical content of the specification."

It needs some sort of review to make sure it really is just editorial 
and also that it isn't making a change people think makes it worse.  One 
possibility could be Director's approval and the AC can choose to appeal 
the Director's decision with the usual timeline (3 weeks to appeal).  
The problem is you don't want something published that accidentally 
causes new licensing commitments when you think you aren't.

A Director's decision plus appeal rather than PR doesn't really save 
that much time (3 weeks during which an appeal can happen vs 4 weeks 
review).

Another alternative could be a patent policy change so that Edited 
Recommendations do not create any additional Essential Claims (even when 
someone accidentally adds something that otherwise would create new 
Essential Claims).  And make them always be called Edited 
Recommendations so that applies.  Then we could loosen up the rules on 
how easy it is to change the text without worrying it is changing patent 
commitments.  That probably is worth doing anyway because these aren't 
supposed to be causing patent commitments.  It also simplifies doing 
them when there isn't a WG to do it.

>
> ~fantasai
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2014 19:58:12 UTC

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