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

W3C Process 2016

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 15:28:37 -0400
To: "w3c-ac-members@w3.org" <w3c-ac-members@w3.org>, "Chairs@w3.org" <Chairs@w3.org>
Cc: "ab@w3.org" <ab@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ba807cf1-b506-7fce-2094-a1b1692c0080@w3.org>
Dear AC representative, WG Chair, or member of the public,

The Advisory Board is forwarding a proposed Process 2016 draft [1] and 
[2] to the Advisory Committee for consideration and comment. The plan is 
that, based on the received comments, a revised draft will be sent to 
the Advisory Committee for formal Review prior to the September TPAC 
meeting and that there will be time for questions and comments on the 
proposed Review document at the TPAC meeting.

[1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/cfef536bff0d/cover.html

[2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/160803-050901-diff.html 
<http://clck.ru/A3XKF>(HTML Diff version)

Please send comments as soon as possible (to facilitate response 
preparation) and prior to August 31^th (a 4 week comment period). 
Comments should be sent  to public-w3process@w3.org 
<mailto:public-w3process@w3.org> (Mailing list archive 
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/>, publicly 
available) or to process-issues@w3.org (Member-only archive 
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/process-issues>). A Public Issue 
Tracker <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/> and detailed 
changelogs <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/> are available online. You may 
discuss your comments on any other list, such as w3c-ac-forum@w3.org 
<mailto:w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>, as long as you send the comments to one of 
the W3process lists above and copy that list in the discussion.

The *major changes* in this document and their rationale are outlined below:

*Renumbered - 5.2.8*, it becomes 5.2.7 (there was no section 5.2.7 in 
Process 2015)

*Removed the statement that the W3C doesn't organize conferences*

*Added a process to make a Recommendation Obsolete and consolidate it 
with Rescinding a Recommendation*- 6.9 

The AB observed that there are some Recommendations that have (mostly) 
outlived their usefulness and should no longer be implemented in new 
software. This class of Recommendations, called Obsolete 
Recommendations,  is different from the class of Rescinded 
Recommendations. Rescinding is an existing process that has an effect on 
patent licensing commitments (see section 5 of the patent policy). This 
change only adds obsoleting (and un-obsoleting). A Recommendation that 
is Obsoleted remains a Recommendation, it still has patent licensing 
commitments and it can be referenced Normatively, but implementation of 
that Recommendation is discouraged.

Section 6.9 of the Process Document has been changed to add (to the 
process to Rescind a Recommendation) a specification of the processes to 
Obsolete and to un-Obsolete a Recommendation. The details of the process 
are similar in each case, but the effect is different. For a few reasons 
— to streamline the process, because it’s a simple yes/no question (that 
is, the content of the affected Recommendation, except for the Status 
section, does not change), and because we would only obsolete when we 
don’t know of anyone to contact to ask for wide review — Wide Review 
prior to the AC (and Public) Review is not required or necessary.

Anyone can request one of these actions. If the Working Group that 
produced the specification is still extant (or exists as a re-chartered 
group) then that Working Group acts to recommend that the requested 
action take place. If there is no such Working Group, the TAG acts to do 
a technical assessment of the requested action. If proceeding is 
recommended or the AC appeals a rejection, then an AC Review and the 
Director’s Decision determine the result. See 6.9 
<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#rec-rescind> for 
the exact details.

*Changed the voting for AB and TAG elections to Single Transferable 
Vote*- 2.5.2 

The W3C Membership recommended that W3C experiment with different voting 
mechanisms for TAG and AB elections. After analysis of the 2-year 
experiment that occurred as a result of that recommendation, the 
Membership supported the adoption of an Single Transferable Vote 
tabulation system for TAG and AB elections with the expectation that it 
will be more representative of the Membership's will.

The text that is in the proposed Process document was designed with the 
following goals in mind:

·The *tabulation system* description (and choice of specific tabulation 
system) should be independent of the *process document text*.

·The *tabulation system* should be described independent of specific 
*voting operations* (e.g., the forms that members fill out).

·The *tabulation system* should be described independent of any 
*software we use to compute results* (that is: we should not rely on a 
single piece of software for implementation).

The Team currently believes that the Meek STV 
tabulation system is the best fit for the TAG and AB elections. Details 
on why and how are at 

*Simplified and Rationalized Appeals*, so they can occur whether there 
was dissent or not, and in a broader range of cases – see especially 6.4 
6.9 <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#rec-rescind>, 
7 <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#ReviewAppeal>, 
7.2 <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#ACAppeal>, 
7.3 <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/ACVotes>, 10 
<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#Submission>, 10.4 
<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#SubmissionNo>, 11 

Toward the end of the process of creating Process 2015, a number of 
issues related to "appeals" in the W3C process surfaced. At that time, 
there seemed to be too little time to appropriately address the issues 
with the care that seemed to be needed. These issues (and ones which 
have arisen since then) are addressed in the proposed Process 2016.

These changes made the following clarifications:

A.Which of the three types of appeal is to be used MUST be explicitly 
identified. The three types are:

i. Group Decision Appeal

ii. Submission Appeal

iii. Advisory Committee Appeal

B.Who can initiate the appeal MUST be identified (whether it is an 
individual or an AC Representative)

C.What is being appealed, what "decision" and who (chair, Director, W3C 
or Team) made it MUST be identified.

D.There should be a specification of what DOCUMENTATION should accompany 
each type of appeal. This is specified for a Group Decision Appeal.

Note: Formal Objections are not strictly an "appeal". They are 
"registered" not "initiated" and they follow the document to which they 
apply. A separate step, the Group Decision Appeal, that asks the 
Director to "confirm or deny a decision" (of the group) is the appeal 
mechanism. Any individual may register a Formal Objection, but only 
group participants may issue a Group Decision Appeal and if they belong 
to a Member organization then they must do so through their AC 

Finally, the rules for what decisions are appealable were simplified to 
be uniform across each class of decisions.

*Clarified the rights and obligations of Member Consortia*and their 
representatives - 2.1.2 

The Problems:

When we introduced the Introductory Industry Membership level [3, 4] we 
imposed limitations on the rights and privileges of this category of 
Member. The proposed change eliminates the disagreement between the 
current terms of an Introductory Industry Member per their Member 
Agreement and this section of the Process which implies such Members may 
participate in (all) Working Groups and Interest Groups.

[3] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees?showall=1

[4] http://www.w3.org/2014/08/intromem

In looking at the way we define the entitlements of Member Organizations 
that are also a Consortium in nature, there are a couple of issues that 
need to be addressed.  They arise from the fact that we allow these 
Members to appoint four (or more) people to represent them within W3C.  
While we say they are there to represent the Consortium we have been 
experiencing cases where these designated representatives are in fact 
representing their own interests.  This opens an IP exposure for W3C 
because we don't have commitments from their employers, just from the 
Consortium.  It also offers a "back door" for large corporations to 
participate without joining themselves.  The proposed changes, in 
section 2.1.2 
attempt to close those loopholes.

*Clarified the process for continuing work on a specification initially 
developed under another charter*- 5.2.3 
5.2.4 <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#cfp>, 5.2.6 
<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#WGCharter>, 6.2.2 

When the W3C Patent Policy and Process Documents were drafted, some 
Members may have assumed that work on a W3C Recommendation would be the 
product of work under a single Working Group charter; instead, Working 
Drafts often evolve through multiple Working Group charters. The major 
uncertainty has often been phrased as "When do Working Groups end?", but 
in fact concerns the situation where a Recommendation is developed under 
more than one Working Group Charter.  Many specifications take more than 
one charter period to move from First Public Working Draft to 
Recommendation. There is a longstanding practice of adopting a Working 
Draft that was published under a previous charter, and continuing to 
develop it in a Working Group with a newer charter.

The changes apply to Working Drafts that have had a full exclusion 
opportunity under a Working Group pursuant to the Patent Policy (i.e., 
Reference Draft (RD) issued within 90 days of a First Public Working 
Draft (FPWD) and a Candidate Recommendation (CR) (called Last Call 
Working Draft (LCWD) in the Patent Policy).

The changes in this draft cover:

a)    A change in the W3C Process Document to clarify how work can 
continue under a new Working Group charter on a Working Draft that has 
already had a full exclusion opportunity; and

b)    Suggested improvements in practice to improve the ability to trace 
the origin of Working Drafts, and their associated Reference Drafts and 
Candidate Recommendations.

The most relevant text, currently in section 5.2.6 Working Group and 
Interest Group Charters, is:

“For every Recommendation Track deliverable that continues work on a 
Working Draft (WD) published under any other Charter (including a 
predecessor group of the same name), for which there is an existing 
Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation, the description of that 
deliverable in the proposed charter of the adopting Working Group /must/ 
provide the following information:

·The title, stable URL, and publication date of the Adopted Working 
Draft which will serve as the basis for work on the deliverable

·The title, stable URL, and publication date of the most recent 
Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation 
<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#last-call> which 
triggered an Exclusion Opportunity per the Patent Process

·The stable URL of the Working Group charter under which the most recent 
Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation was published.

These data /must/ be identified in the charter with the labels "Adopted 
Working Draft", "most recent Reference Draft", "most recent Candidate 
Recommendation", and "Other Charter", respectively.

The Reference Draft is the latest Working Draft published within 90 days 
of the First Public Working Draft 
<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#first-wd> or if 
no Public Working Draft has been published within 90 days of the First 
Public Working Draft it is that First Public Working Draft. It is the 
specific draft against which exclusions are made, as per section 4.1 
<https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-exclusion-with> of the 
W3C Patent Policy <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy> [PUB33 

The Adopted Working Draft and the most recent Reference Draft or 
Candidate Recommendation 
<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#last-call> /must/ 
each be adopted in their entirety and without any modification. The 
proposed charter /must/ state that the most recent Reference Draft or 
Candidate Recommendation is deemed to be the Reference Draft or 
Candidate Recommendation of the Adopted Working Draft, and the date when 
the Exclusion Opportunity that arose on publishing the First Public 
Working Draft or Candidate Recommendation began and ended. As per 
section 4.3 <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-join> of 
the W3C Patent Policy <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy> 
this potentially means that exclusions can only be made immediately on 
joining a Working Group.

The Director /must not/ issue a call for participation less than 60 days 
after the beginning of an Advisory Committee Review for a charter that 
continues work on a document that has had a Reference Draft or Candidate 
Recommendation published.”

This 60 waiting period guarantees that the Exclusion period for a First 
Public Working Draft issued 90 days before the announcement of a 
(re-)charter or a Candidate Recommendation issued before the 
announcement of the (re-)charter will have completed under the charter 
under which it was issued. This also allows time to assess any patent 
implications that might arise from a scope change in the new charter.

Other changes are in 5.2.3 
5.2.4 <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#cfp>, 6.2.2 

Note:  Except for Section 3.1 of the Patent Policy, there is no explicit 
statement in the Patent Policy that commitments made under the Patent 
Policy ever expire.

Jeff Jaffe, Chair, W3C Advisory Board
Charles McCathie Nevile, Editor, W3C Process Document
Steve Zilles, Chair, W3C Technical Report Development Task Force
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2016 19:28:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 3 August 2016 19:28:49 UTC