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

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

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:38:17 -0700
Message-ID: <55087499.8040507@linux.intel.com>
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>


On 2015-03-16 21:09, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Wayne Carr [mailto:wayne.carr@linux.intel.com]
>> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 4:10 PM
>> To: David Singer
>> Cc: Stephen Zilles; Charles McCathieNevile; W3C Process Community Group
>> Subject: Re: Review comments on 3 March 2015 Process Editor's draft
> [SZ] [SNIP] (and David Singer is ">>"
>>> 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.
>>
>> That's why I'd like it in the process that the WG closes when the charter
>> expires.  Seems there's no reason why it needs to expire rather than a short
>> extension.  I'd rather have it clear if the charter expires the WG is closed.
> [SZ] The problem with saying the WG is closed is that there are IPR considerations that are far from clear when a WG closes. We currently have a discussion as to whether re-chartering a WG creates a new WG or continues the existing WG. Any patent commitments that have been made clearly depend on the resolution of this discussion. The PSIG has been unable to resolve this issue, but adopting what you propose would IMHO push the conclusion in the wrong direction. I think that is why the AB has been looking at less drastic penalties for failing to re-charter.

Oh no, not that again!!! :)

I think that is an issue we have manufactured and we shouldn't let it 
keep us from doing what's sensible about recognizing that WGs that do 
not have an active Charter are not WGs.  We can word this so that it has 
nothing to do with the arcane issue of whether WGs are the same WG after 
recharter.  I'm not saying we should say that if a WG re-charters it is 
the same WG or a different WG - if a WG recharters it isn't in the 
situation I'm talking about at all.  I'm saying if a WG does not have an 
active Charter it is no WG at all. WGs have active charters - whether a 
series of different WGs or one WG that modifies its charter over time is 
irrelevant.

The proposal is to add to Process section 6.2.8:  "If the Charter that a 
Working Group or Interest Group operates under expires, that group 
automatically closes and the Director MUST announce closure of the group 
to the Advisory Committee."

That could be avoided (trivially) by the Director simply granting a 
Charter extension.   All the Director has to do is say the Charter is 
extended and why.  If they re-charter it doesn't happen.  But, that says 
nothing about whether rechartering starts a new WG or not.

6.2.8 has provisions for the Director closing a WG for various reasons.  
This proposal is a clarification where the group automatically closes if 
it does not have an active Charter to operate under and the Director 
just announces it is closed (the Director doesn't close it - it expires).

  Note that 6.2.8 says the Director "MAY close a group prior to the date 
specified in the charter in any of the following circumstances:"  Why 
can the Director no longer close a group AFTER the date specified in the 
charter?  Is the intent that zombie groups without an active Charter are 
immune from action by the Director?  Probably not.  That restriction 
makes sense because without a valid charter the group is already closed 
so the Director can't close it! But, W3C has been allowing WGs to 
continue work after Charter expiration.  The SysApps WG continues at 5 
months without a Charter and counting.  There are what amount to 
unfinished, abandoned specs in that WG and they're trapped there as long 
as that WG is considered as still open (without a Charter). Rules about 
not letting them publish, etc. do absolutely nothing about them trapping 
abandoned work.  It makes it so you can't even quit a dead WG because it 
may make decisions like dropping specs from it's non-existent Charter.


>
> Steve Zilles
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2015 18:38:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 17 March 2015 18:38:49 UTC