- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 08:45:21 -0700
- To: timeless@gmail.com
- Cc: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
> 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 contrast to a Rescinded Recommendation.)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 Rescinded.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