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

Re: Review comments on 3 March 2015 Process Editor's draft

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:46:34 -0700
Cc: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <0107AC6C-8C35-4510-9C95-ABEEBDDD6567@apple.com>
To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>

> On Mar 16, 2015, at 15:22 , Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2015-03-16 10:23, David Singer wrote:
>> Hi Wayne
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 16, 2015, at 10:01 , Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> We only have once a year to change the Charter, so waiting means another year.
>> What forces a year here?  I don’t get it.
> 
> The cadence of Process 2015 being published this year (approval soon) and then not another update until Process 2016, so a 1 year cadence for changes.

OK, I am getting confused between Charters (of groups) and Process documents.

> 
>> 
>>> This isn't a hypothetical situation - the NFC WG and SysApps WG charters expired 4 and 5 months ago.  An expired WG that drifts on month after month traps any abandoned specs in it.  If the WG closed, someone could ask that the specs be moved to a CG (for the Director and AC to decide).  Without it closing, the specs just sit there.   It's not clear then even if Members should quit the WG, since they may then lose the ability to participate in decisions the expired WG continues to make - like whether  to abandon specs or to close.
>>> 
>>> If a WG has a good reason that it needs more time, the Director can very easily give it an extension, which can be done very quickly.  So, why does a WG ever need to be able to continue after expiration?  Why wouldn't the Director simply extend the WG?  An extended WG clearly operates under the patent policy.  Less clear what happens when a WG without an active Charter publishes TRs and has exclusion periods, or has the notion of quitting a WG that isn't under Charter.
>> No disagreement here.
>> 
>>> Benefits of extending the WG rather than allowing unchartered WGs to operate include: 1) patent licensing obligations are clear for chartered WGs, but not for WGs with expired charters; 2) the AC can appeal a Charter extension, but can do nothing at all when W3C management chooses to operate a WG without a Charter.
>>> 
>>> I think we should change the Process now.  If the AC or Director don't agree they can strike that change as part of the AC/Director approval for the new Process.
>>> 
>>> On the proposed team rules:
>>> I don't think we should formalize a WG publishing without a valid Charter.  Do they have an exclusion period for publications without a valid Charter?
>> I think the AB’s thought process was that first we would clean up practices so that charter expiry happens very rarely (ideally, not at all), and then we could tighten up the rules on what happens when a charter expires.  Charter expiry is so common now that if we propose tight rules to the AC, they will panic.
> 
> Except that they have months to fix it before it applies.  The AC Review is some time in May, so this would be something like June. And all they need is a Charter extension so they aren't expired :) A brief extension with the purpose of getting a Charter approved seems easy to get.

Again, I am confused between Process 2015/2016 and Charters for groups.  We’re suggesting that the Process say that, basically, publishing doesn’t normally happen when a group charter has expired — special pleading is needed.  “the dog ate my LCWD and I had to re-write it”;  “the team member got the flu and was off for the last two weeks of the charter period”, whatever; with a strong implication that you don’t want to get into this state. You’re in a hole and pleading to get out of it.

I agree, it may be easier to get a charter extension.

> 
>> 
>>>  It seems stating those are the rules is a choice to divorce the patent policy from active Charters in some undefined way that we probably don't want to get into.   I wouldn't say "extensions should be used sparingly.”
>> We said this not as an alternative to running un-chartered, but as an alternative to reviewing and revising the charter.  We don’t want groups that run for years on extension after extension without anyone checking the charter.
> The part I was concerned about was explicitly saying they can publish after the Charter expires.   That could mean an exclusion period on a TR published after the Charter expired.  I don't want long extensions either.  I'd like a total time limit on them.  But, if bad things happen and extension can prevent running unchartered long enough to pass come kind of charter even if it's only one to give them longer to figure out what they're doing.

Yes, it may be easier to request a 1-month extension to publish and close.

> 
>> 
>>> They're better than running an unchartered WG.  Extentions should be limited to no more than 3 months after the initial duration of the Charter, so they don't get extended for years.
>> Extensions because you didn’t notice you were about to expire should be as rare as any other reason.  That’s the point of the two-quarters check:
>> 
>> a) for charters that have just expired, either close the group, or panic (should never happen) and extend
>> b) for charters expiring at the end of this quarter, make sure the revision is out to the AC for approval
>> c) for charters expiring at the end of next quarter, make sure that the review and revision drafting with the chairs, team, et al. is under way and will terminate this quarter
> 
> those are good.  and those are consistent with the notion that a WG closes when the charter expires.  These checks would be when, quarterly, charters expire and when one was at the end of it's time a) says close or extend.
> 
> My concern is letting expired groups operate at all after they expire (so not that rule about publishing after they expire), preferring a brief extension to let them recharter or finish.

I think if we can get to the point where groups never have expired charters, it will be easy but irrelevant to say what is and is not allowed under those circumstances.

> 
>> 
>>>  If something is going on where they can't even get a 1 year charter identical to the previous one passed to give them more time, than the WG is in trouble.  So I'd change that to a fixed time limit for total duration of extensions.

We discussed allowing a single 2-quarter extension, which should allow (as noted above) one quarter to re-write the charter and one quarter to get it approved.

>> David Singer
>> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 16 March 2015 22:47:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 16 March 2015 22:47:05 UTC