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: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:50:21 +0000
To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BY1PR02MB111472B8DC955979C50903BAAE350@BY1PR02MB1114.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>

From: Jeff Jaffe [mailto:jeff@w3.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 11:08 AM
To: Wayne Carr; Stephen Zilles; public-w3process@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Issue-101] Replacement for the other of the diagrams in the Process document

On 10/8/2015 1:55 PM, Wayne Carr wrote:

On 2015-10-06 21:18, Jeff Jaffe wrote:

On 10/6/2015 11:50 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
See below

From: Jeff Jaffe [mailto:jeff@w3.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 6:20 PM
To: Stephen Zilles; public-w3process@w3.org<mailto:public-w3process@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [Issue-101] Replacement for the other of the diagrams in the Process document


In CR, if there are substantial changes we stay in CR; but if there are very substantial changes we go back to WD.

Have we defined the difference between substantial changes and very substantial changes?
[SZ] No, IMO it is up to the WG to decide whether the changes would take a document out of CR. The most obvious reason would be that there need to be major implementation changes and, therefore, the document is not really ready for implementation (the anachronistic definition of CR) anymore. If the changes involve implementation tweeks and the participants agree that they should be made, then those are substantive, but not "very substantive". If you think putting in some text like that would be useful, it could be proposed

I wasn't making a proposal.  I was just trying to make sense of the terms in the proposed diagram.  Your explanation doesn't make it clear enough (at least for me).

It's defined in the process doc.  I think the wording in the diagram is to refer to:

It is 3 Corrections that do not add new features and 4 New features.

Here's the section that says what happens in those cases PR for 3 and FPWD for 4.

I know that substantive change is defined in the process document.  That wasn't my question.

The diagram differentiates between substantive change and very substantive change.  I don't see any such definition in the process document.

Perhaps you are arguing that substantive change is "3 Corrections" and very substantive is "4 New features".  If that is the intent, I would prefer to use that language in the diagram.

[SZ] Two points:

1.      The goal, posited by David Singer, was to have the labels on the arrow indicate the trigger condition for the transition. For the transition from PR back to CR, the trigger is "substantive change" I do not believe that we should change that label.

2.      For the transition from CR back to WD, I tried to create a label which would reflect a trigger because the Process Document only says that "Return to Working Draft" is a possible next step for a CR, but does not give any "trigger" for that step to be taken. Given that observation, perhaps the label should be , "Substantive Change and Working Group Decision", implying that it is up to the WG to decide whether the document should go back to WD. I do not see a requirement to go back to WD if new features are added. There is such a requirement for Edited Recommendations, but not for CR. Perhaps there should be such a requirement.

Maybe "feature modifications" or "feature tweaks" instead of substantive and "new features" instead of very substantive for the diagram ?

Steve Z

On 10/5/2015 10:17 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:

A proposed, revised replacement for diagram in sections 6.7 of the 2015 Process Document


is attached.

Comments are welcome

Steve Z
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2015 18:50:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 8 October 2015 18:50:57 UTC