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: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:28:29 +0200
To: "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org>, "Wayne Carr" <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, "Stephen Zilles" <szilles@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <op.x58chrads7agh9@widsith.local>
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 03:39:19 +0200, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>  
wrote:

>
>
>> -----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.
[scenarios of how it works]
>> 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"

Again, seems pretty wordy for a quick reminder diagram.

"Director requests further work"?

[snipped stuff on a different subtopic]

cheers

chaals

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
  chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Friday, 9 October 2015 08:29:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 9 October 2015 08:29:10 UTC