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

Re: Non-substantive CR and Director's decision

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:48:11 -0800
To: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Cc: webreq <webreq@w3.org>, Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>, "Wayne Carr (ext)" <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <5646225B.1000309@linux.intel.com>


On 2015-11-12 07:02, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 15:16:56 +0100, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> 
> wrote:
>
>> The Process indicates the following:
>> [[
>> If there are any substantive changes made to a Candidate 
>> Recommendation other than to remove features explicitly identified as 
>> "at risk", the Working Group must obtain the Director's approval to 
>> publish a revision of a Candidate Recommendation. This is because 
>> substantive changes will generally require a new Exclusion 
>> Opportunity per section 4 of the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33]. Note that 
>> approval is expected to be fairly simple compared to getting approval 
>> for a transition from Working Draft to Candidate Recommendation.
>> ]]
>> http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#revised-cr
>>
>> My understanding is that the W3C Process allows the publication of a 
>> revised candidate recommendation *without* Director's approval if 
>> there are *no substantive changes*. It would also mean that no call 
>> for exclusions are issued as well.
>>
>> Is that a correct understanding?

I think it clearly says that if there are no substantive changes or if 
the substantive changes are removing "at risk" sections, then you can 
publish without Director's approval.

Otherwise it would make no sense to have "substantive " in the 
sentence.  It would say  if there are "any changes" other than removing 
at risk, you need the Director.

>
> That matches my understanding. For example, editorial clarification to 
> make a document easier to understand, which does not change 
> conformance of implementations, should be able to be republished. 
> Ditto a new version with at-risk features removed.
>
> In addition, my expectation is that small obvious substantive changes in
> response to issues raised and discussed should be approved without a huge
> amount of work...
>
> cheers
>
Received on Friday, 13 November 2015 17:48:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 13 November 2015 17:48:46 UTC