W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > April 2015

Comments on: W3C Process2015

From: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 17:16:48 +0000
To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
CC: "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7C0AF84C6D560544A17DDDEB68A9DFB52ED02B0F@ex10-mbx-9007.ant.amazon.com>
Dear Process folks,

I have the following comments on the proposed 2015 Process document. Please note that we discussed aspects of the process in the I18N WG on several occasions recently, but not the specifics of my comments presented here: these comments are mine.

Section 7.1.2, Candidate Recommendation (CR):

As I noted previously on the chairs list, because the circa 2014 process does not require a Last Call, it is entirely possible that Internationalization might never hear about a document or have the opportunity to formally review it until it is passing the CR threshold. While we have switched our process to tracking every FPWD, this is a tedious process and requires the working group (and mainly the chair) to evaluate every FPWD document. The process is, in other words, not helping us do a good job. This may apply to other “horizontal groups” also. Richard and I have inserted comments into [1], but would suggest some text in the process document also:

Alter the sentence: “A Candidate Recommendation is a document that satisfies the Working Group's technical requirements, and has already received wide review.”

To read:

“A Candidate Recommendation is a document that satisfies the Working Group's technical requirements, has already received wide review, and has been reviewed by W3C’s horizontal groups.”

Section 7.2.3.1, Wide Review

As above, a mention of the horizontal groups might be desirable here. Perhaps they should be explicitly cited as evidence of wide review? Perhaps add a mention of the horizontal groups, such as Internationalization, to this sentence:

“Before approving transitions, the Director will consider who has been explicitly offered a reasonable opportunity to review the document, who has provided comments, the record of requests to and responses from reviewers, especially groups identified as dependencies in the charter or identified as liaisons [PUB29], and seek evidence of clear communication to the general public about appropriate times and which content to review and whether such reviews actually occurred.”

For example:

“Before approving transitions, the Director will consider who has been explicitly offered a reasonable opportunity to review the document, who has provided comments, the record of requests to and responses from reviewers, especially groups identified as dependencies in the charter and identified as liaisons [PUB29] as well as W3C’s horizontal groups [define them], and seek evidence of clear communication to the general public about appropriate times and which content to review and whether such reviews actually occurred.”

Thanks,

Addison

[1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/DocumentReview


Addison Phillips
Chair (W3C I18N WG)

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.



From: Stephen Zilles [mailto:szilles@adobe.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:04 AM
To: w3c-ac-members; Chairs
Cc: ab; public-w3process
Subject: Close of Initial Review Period, W3C Process2015

On March 6th, you were asked [1] to review the current draft of Process2015 [2] and respond by 31 March. That Review officially closes today, but comments received by the end of this week will be considered.

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2015JanMar/0044.html

[2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/68f2be460152/cover.html<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/68f2be460152/cover.html%3chttps:/dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html>>

Comments should be sent to public-w3process@w3.org<mailto:public-w3process@w3.org>
<mailto:public-w3process@w3.org> and may be copied to any list you think
relevant to the comment. There is a diff document showing changes from Process2014 at:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/att-0024/DiffProcess2015.html


A number of comments have been received to date. Some of the key comments are at:

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2015JanMar/0088.html

begins a discussion of restructuring and/or re-examing the TAG both in terms of its structure and scope of work. Also useful is
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2015JanMar/0101.html


https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/0023.html

has a number of editorial comments and introduces (Comment 9) the topic of fixing up “bugs” in the Appeal process. The Process Document Task Force has viewed this as too big a topic to do piecemeal and proposes this be a discussion topic for Process 2016.

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/0068.html

raises two issues: (1) whether the Chair of the AB or TAG can ask a member to resign without having a cause for that request and (2) whether there is an inconsistency between sections 2.5.3 and 3.4 on requirements for voting rules in charters.

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/0063.html

expands on a discussion of rules for Charter Extensions.

There is also one open issue, Issue-152, which has a note in the Document [2 above]
https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/152


Steve Zilles
Chair, Process Document Task Force
Received on Friday, 3 April 2015 17:17:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 April 2015 17:17:15 UTC