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: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 01:39:19 +0000
To: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BN3PR02MB11120FF07F05F7D6D52C16D2AE340@BN3PR02MB1112.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chaals McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru]
> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 4:10 PM
> To: Jeff Jaffe; Wayne Carr; public-w3process@w3.org; Stephen Zilles
> Subject: Re: [Issue-101] Replacement for the other of the diagrams in the
> Process document
> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:50:21 +0200, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> > From: Jeff Jaffe [mailto:jeff@w3.org]
> > 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]
> >>>> Steve,
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> This is not correct. Revising a CR requires approval from the director, so
> attempting to change it in a way that did not satisfy the director - for example
> because there is no evidence that the changes proposed have received
> sufficient review - is what would effectively require a new WD.
> (The director may also explicitly require the group to go back to WD, but that
> seems a rarer case).
> >>>> 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 tweaks and the
> >>>> participants agree that they should be made, then those are
> >>>> substantive, but not “very substantive”.
> The question is not whether the participants agree that the changes should
> be made, it is whether they can convince the director that the changes have
> been appropriately reviewed.
> In terms of how this would work, a transition approval might suggest changes
> and say "the editors suggested this would fix a problem", the 'director'
> reviewing the request might say "ORLY? And did they ask anyone else what
> that means", the staff contact would say "well, here is a thread where the WG
> discuss the proposal and agree it is great, here are 8 outside implementors
> who independently noted the same problem and suggested a fix along the
> lines being proposed", and the Director would say "Hmm, makes sense…".
> Alternatively the staff contact might be "we asked a few people and the
> internationalisation people said it made it impossible to use anything except
> ASCII to write people's addresses, and the accessibility people said it would
> no longer be possible to use the spec for someone without a mouse, and the
> privacy people said it exposes people's intimate life to an unconscionable
> degree, but we figured we'd like to fix the text. In which case presumably the
> director would refuse permission to publish the revised CR.
> In terms of how we express that in a diagram, I understand the difficulty Steve
> faced in finding the right term, because it doesn't leap to my mind either. The
> rough scenario is "change that needs further review", but that scrimps on
> details and bulks up the image already...
> >>>> 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).
> ["substantive change" has implications for revising a Rec in particular]
> > 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.
> That would work for me as an approximation, although it isn't perfect either.
> But then, this is an illustrative diagram. The people who rely on it *without*
> reading the linked text (and in an update I'll fix the links so the labels really
> link to the right bit in the document - along with some necessary
> improvements to make the thing sufficiently accessible) are always going to
> have a bit of a bad time. They are also probably always going to exist.
> > [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.
> Agreed.
> > 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.
> Well, the WG can decide that, but the trigger is "don't get permission to revise
> the CR in place, and don't want to go forward without the showstopping
> revision(s)".

[SZ] How about the following for the label on the CR back to WD arrow:
"substantive changes &
Directors approval to 
stay in CR not given"
> > I do not see a requirement to go back to WD if new features are added.
> There isn't one. Instead, a new exclusion opportunity arises. Assuming all the
> other requirements (dependencies met, enough review, etc) are satisfied.
> > There is such a requirement for Edited Recommendations, but not for CR.
> > Perhaps there should be such a requirement.
> I don't think there should be such a requirement. The point of it for Edited
> Rec is that if we're going to start bringing in obvious new IPR, it's worth the
> process of spinning up a formal set of patent commitments to it backed by
> the membership at large, rather than letting a rump group of 4 heroic editors
> just blithely assume the world is benign...
> cheers
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
>     chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Friday, 9 October 2015 01:39:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 9 October 2015 01:39:52 UTC