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

Re: Obsoleting a Recommendation, round two

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 08:45:21 -0700
Cc: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <97950217-8724-43C2-BDBD-319A479BF865@apple.com>
To: timeless@gmail.com

> On Apr 27, 2016, at 20:48 , timeless <timeless@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Is it reasonable to reach out to the authors of the REC? (as distinct
> from the WG)

Editors?  Maybe, maybe not.  That’s why I am trying to find a group that (a) has some (ostensible) technical understanding and (b) can be reasonably expected to work out who should be contacted. I can’t think of any other standing group than the TAG who could plausibly work this out. The aim here is to avoid an AC vote on something for which a reasonable chunk of the community will disagree; I don’t want anyone being able to trigger a full formal AC vote without some sort of small-group sanity filter.



> 
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> 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 contrast to a Rescinded Recommendation.)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.
>> 
>> 
>> 

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 29 April 2016 15:45:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 29 April 2016 15:45:52 UTC