W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > April 2016

Re: Obsoleting a Recommendation, round two

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:43:30 -0700
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "singer@apple.com" <singer@apple.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5720EC32.9020508@linux.intel.com>
I removed the AB from my response to avoid posting to public and private 
lists.  Someone on the AB forward it to that list.

On 2016-04-25 11:08, Stephen Zilles wrote:
> David, just one small suggestion inline below.
> Steve Z
> -----Original Message-----
> From: singer@apple.com [mailto:singer@apple.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 10:52 AM
> To: public-w3process@w3.org
> Cc: Advisory Board <ab@w3.org>
> Subject: Obsoleting a Recommendation, round two
> After offline discussion with some AB members, and the call today, I offer the following.
> 1) A new page, or section of a page, that defines what an Obsoleted Recommendation is.
> An Obsoleted Recommendation is a Recommendation that the W3C membership no longer actively recommends be implemented; however, its formal status as a Recommendation (including its licensing status) remains.  (This is in contrast to a Rescinded Recommendation.)
> A Recommendation may be considered obsolete if it is neither widely implemented nor expected to be. It may represent a technical direction that was not pursued further, or an architectural direction that is no longer in alignment with best practices in the industry. There may be alternative technologies better aligned with other parts of the Web Platform, or more in line with best practices. There may be technical drawbacks or even flaws associated with the Recommendation, but not so serious as to cause it to be Rescinded.
Why is this explanation repeated in two places in the Process doc (6.x 
below and this one)?

> The W3C marks these as Obsolete to give guidance to the industry that new implementation is not sought or expected.
> 2) A new section of the Process Document, 6.X (6.10 if existing sections are not re-numbered, but it probably belongs before rescinded in logical order).
> 6.X Obsoleting a Recommendation
> Anyone may request of the TAG that a Recommendation be considered for Obsoletion. The request to the TAG MUST identify the Recommendation and give reasons why it should be considered Obsolete; for example, that the Recommendation has not been implemented, and no new implementations are expected; that there are better alternative specifications; that the Recommendation in question is not in alignment with best design practices, and so on.

It should be clear that when there are multiple revisions of 
recommendations, older ones can be obsoleted.  e.g.  a perfectly good, 
in its time, REC can be obsoleted when the W3C membership thinks 
implementers should be implementing a new version of the spec.

> The TAG SHOULD consult with any pertinent working groups, especially the Working Group that developed the Recommendation, or any obvious successor WG. The TAG MUST make the decision to proceed, by formal decision of the TAG.

The TAG is an advisory group.  I do not think we should allow the small 
number of people in the TAG to decide for the W3C membership whether a 
REC can be obsoleted.  The TAG should make a recommendation.  There 
should be a way for the AC to force an AC Review in any case.

So I'd make this:

The TAG MUST make a recommendation on whether to proceed, by formal decision of the TAG.  The Director decides whether to proceed and that decision (either positive or negative) is subject to AC Appeal.

> SZ: I suggest the above sentence be, "The TAG MUST announce its intent to consider the Request to Obsolete the Recommendation to other W3C groups and to the public and SHOULD consult with any pertinent working groups, especially the Working Group that developed the Recommendation, or any obvious successor WG. The TAG MUST make the decision to proceed, by formal decision of the TAG."
> SZ: I based the announcement requirement on the announcement requirement for First Public Working Drafts, Section 6.3.1 of the current Process Document: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#first-wd
> On the TAG’s decision to proceed, an Obsoleted Recommendation follows the process for a Proposed Edited Recommendation as defined in 6.7.2 and 6.5 for changes to a Recommendation that are Editorial only.

With the change I suggested above, this becomes "On the Director's 
decision to proceed"
> If there is dissent in the Advisory Committee (votes against, or formal objections) the usual process to find consensus will be followed. Objections SHOULD include evidence that the proposal is flawed; for example, that the Recommendation is widely implemented, or it is reasonably expected that it will soon be widely implemented.
> Considering the advice of the Advisory Committee, the Director approves or denies the decision to obsolete. An obsoleted Recommendation is marked as such (a) in the document itself and (b) on the TR page. The status ‘Obsoleted’ links to a standing page which explains the meaning of the term.

Add: The Director's decision is subject to AC Appeal, unless the 
decision was to approve and there were no formal objections.

(Note: I'm explicitly allowing an AC Appeal if the director rejects - 
some other Director decisions are cannot be appealed if the Director 
rejects the proposal and I think we should not create any more of those.)

> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2016 16:44:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 April 2016 16:44:00 UTC