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: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 12:58:31 -0700
To: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <56181C67.6080201@linux.intel.com>


On 2015-10-09 01:28, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote:
> 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"?

That's what we need to get across.

>
> [snipped stuff on a different subtopic]
>
> cheers
>
> chaals
>
Received on Friday, 9 October 2015 19:59:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 9 October 2015 19:59:02 UTC