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

Re: [Issue-101] Replacement for the other of the diagrams in the Process document

From: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 13:18:50 +0200
To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, "Stephen Zilles" <szilles@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <op.x520doh6s7agh9@widsith.local>
On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 04:17:06 +0200, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>  
wrote:

> A proposed, revised replacement for diagram in sections 6.7 of the 2015  
> Process Document
>  http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#revised-rec
> is attached.Comments are welcome

Argh! The basic accessibility of the earlier diagram has all gone. I don't  
mind updating the diagram, but I'll try to make it more accessible, not  
less so. So if you draw inaccessible pictures I'll work the visual content  
into something better before adding them to the process doc.

I agree with Mark that we should be encouraging test implementation from  
the beginning of the work.

There are hard formal requirements - publish something every 6 months,  
wide review to enter CR, demonstrate that it will be independently  
implemented interoperably to get to PR, AC review/Director's decision to  
get to rec

And there are suggestions: implement early, get review early, publish  
significant changes for review, build a test suite, publish privacy and  
security considerations, check for accessibility and i18n issues, …. In  
principle none of those are formal requirements, but best practices. In  
practice, if you don't take them seriously, you're not going to have a  
good time.

So I think we should mark the hard formal requirements in the transitions,  
in ways that don't imply "now when you want to get to CR you might  
consider asking for "wide review", or implementation..."

Otherwise we risk people continuing to do dumb things like not worry about  
how wide a review they have had until they think they are finished.

For example, *during* the WD phase the group should be:
- stabilising the draft
- getting wide review
   + design patterns, a11y, i18n, privacy, security, authorability,  
usability, …
- checking that implementations (especially independent implementations)  
are interoperable
- developing a test/implementation report plan for CR

During CR the group needs to:
- demonstrate that independent implementations are interoperable
(- wait out the patent clock or demonstrate that there are no IPR risks)

cheers

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2015 11:19:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 October 2015 11:19:27 UTC