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

Re: Comments on Process 2016 (3 August 2016 Editor's Draft)

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2016 23:12:39 -0400
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <353aa605-87c2-aa73-c72f-6b55c2bbc128@w3.org>


On 8/5/2016 6:46 PM, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> Chaals,
>
> I read Process 2016 (3 Aug draft [1]) and have some suggestions.
> Sorry for the length; the Proc Doc is also long. :)
>
> Ian
>
> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/cfef536bff0d/cover.html
>
> ================
> 1 Introduction
>
>    --------
>    "the W3C equivalent of a Web standard." This struck me as odd on
>    this read; equivalent to what?
>
>    Proposed: "the W3C expression of a Web standard."
>
>    --------
>    "(e.g., Web services)". This feels like a dated example.
>
>    Proposed: delete the parenthetical.
>
> ================
> 2.1.2 Membership Consortia and related Members
>
>     "who have individual persons" and
>     "who have organizations as Members"
>
>     Proposed: s/who/that
>
> ===============
> 2.1.3.2 Advisory Committee Meetings
>
>     "The number of Full and Affiliate W3C Members." There are new
>     Membership levels, so this feels a bit off.
>
>     Proposed: "Number and profile of W3C Members"
>
> ===============
> 2.4.1 Technical Architecture Group Participation
>
>    "Appointees are not required to be on the W3C Team." This was surely
>    written long ago and doesn't really speak to actual practice. I do
>    not recall a Team appointee, and I also think the Director in
>    practice wants to populate the TAG with non-Team.
>
>    Proposed: "Appointees SHOULD NOT be from the W3C Team."

While I agree that Ian is probably correct, given that this is a 
substantive change, it has not gone through process CG (or AB) vetting, 
and the Director has not been consulted, I think this should be held 
over for the next process rev.

>
> ===============
> 2.5.3 Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Vacated Seats
>
>    "the Chair asks the participant to resign." I think this is a bug.
>    Because these people are elected, I don't believe this should be
>    a "TAG Chair" right but rather a "Director" right.
>
>    Proposed: "the Director removes the participant from their seat."

Same comment as above.

>
> ===============
> 3.1.1 Conflict of Interest Policy
>
>    "clearly a function of the individual's affiliations". This sounded
>    more editorial than necessary.
>
>    Proposed sentence replacement:
>
>     "The ability of an individual to fulfill a role within a group
>     without risking a conflict of interest depends significantly on the
>     individual's affiliations."
>
> ================
> 4 Dissemination Policies
>
>    "maintains a calendar [MEM3]"
>
>    That calendar is deprecated in favor of a public calendar. That is: the
>    W3C staff no longer maintains a "member only" calendar.
>
>    Proposal:
>       - Delete MEM3 in 12.2
>       - Add a new reference to the public calendar in the public
>         resources and update all references from MEM3 to the new one.
>         Public calendar: http://www.w3.org/participate/eventscal
>
> ================
> 5.1 Requirements for All Working and Interest Groups
>
>    "Existing charters that are not yet public must be made public when
>    next revised or extended (with attention to changing confidentiality
>    level)." I believe there are no more such charters and never will be.
>
>    Proposed: Delete the sentence.

Same comment as above.

>
> ================
> 5.2.4 Call for Participation in a Working Group or Interest Group
>
>    --------
>    "After a Call for Participation, any Member representatives and
>    Invited Experts must be designated (or re-designated)."
>
>    I believe Team practice is slightly different:
>
>     a) If the charter involves no new Rec-track deliverables (and thus
>        there are no new patent obligations), participants are informed
>        of the new charter but are not required to rejoin.
>
>        Otherwise, Members are asked to rejoin.
>
>     b) Regarding Invited Experts, I don't exactly know what happens,
>        including whether they must re-apply to participate.
>
>     Therefore, I believe this sentence needs review.
>
>     --------
>     "If a charter includes deliverables that continue work on a
>     document"
>
>     This is the first time this concept appears in the document and it
>     is introduced with no explanation. The concept is developed in
>     5.2.6 (see my comments about that section). The sentence in 5.2.4
>     is repeated in section 5.2.6. I think 5.2.4 can be simplified to
>     just include a reference.
>
>     Proposed: Replace
>
>        "If a charter includes deliverables that continue work
>         on a document for which a Reference Draft or Candidate
>         Recommendation has previously been published (i.e there has
>         been an Exclusion Opportunity per section 4.1 of the W3C Patent
>         Policy [PUB33]), the Director must not issue a Call for
>         Participation less than 60 days after the beginning of the
>         Advisory Committee Review of the charter."
>
>      with:
>
>        "See section 5.2.6.1 for information about a Call for
>         Participation in a Working Group that has taken up a
>         specification from another group."

I guess this needs PSIG review.

>
> ================
> 5.2.6 Working Group and Interest Group Charters
>
>     ---------------
>     "Intellectual property information. What are the intellectual
>     property (including patents and copyright) considerations affecting
>     the success of the Group? In particular, is there any reason to
>     believe that it will be difficult to meet the Royalty-Free
>     licensing goals of section 2 of the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33]?"
>
>     This text is disconnected from reality. Our charters include
>     boilerplate text about the Patent Policy and, on occasion,
>     document licensing information. I believe the questions quoted
>     above, while they may be considered while discussing the work,
>     never result information actually included in the charter (which
>     is what this bullet list is about).
>
>     Proposed: Replace the bullet with:
>
>      * Intellectual property information. Include information about
>        the governing patent policy and document license.
>
>     ---------------
>     The new text about a group that takes up work from another
>     group is introduced without explanation. It is also sufficiently
>     long that it deserves its own subsection.
>
>     Proposed:
>
>       - Create a new subsection 5.2.6.1 with title:
>           "When a Working Group takes up a Specification Initiated Under Another Charter"
>
>       - The section should start with "For every Recommendation Track
>        deliverable...." and end with "The Director must not issue a
>        call for participation less than 60 days..."
>
>       - The section should be moved to the bottom of 5.2.6. That means
>         that the text "See also the charter requirements of section 2
>         and section 3 of the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33]." would be
>         followed immediately by "An Interest Group charter may include
>         provisions regarding participation,..." and the rest of the
>         text of section 5.2.6. Then insert 5.2.6.1.
>
>       - The following are editorial suggestions for the text of the
>         future 5.2.6.1:
>
>         * Start by explaining what this section covers. Proposed:
>
>          "From time to time, a W3C Working Group takes up work that
> 	 was initiated but not completed by another Working Group.
> 	 This section of the process document describes how W3C
> 	 ensures that the hand-off occurs in a manner consistent
> 	 with the W3C Patent Policy, and with minimal disruption
> 	 to the work."
>
>          * "For every Recommendation Track deliverable that continues
>            work". I find it awkward to speak of a deliverable
> 	  continuing work. Proposed:
>
>            <blockquote>
>             When the Director proposes that a Working Group take up a
> 	   Recommendation Track deliverable initially published under
> 	   any other Charter (including a predecessor group of the
> 	   same name) the charter MUST include the following
> 	   information for each deliverable:
>
>                - The title, stable URL, and publication date of any
>                  Adopted Working Draft that 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 that 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.
>            </blockquote>

Same comment as several earlier ones: it seems late in the process with 
no discussion in CG or AB.  Probably should be held over for next rev.

>
> ================
> 6.1.2 Maturity Levels
>
>     "Rescinded Recommendation" is defined but "Obsoleted
>     Recommendation" is not. Meanwhile, 6.9 includes a definition of
>     Rescinded Recommendation that may not align exactly with what is
>     written here.
>
>     Proposed: 6.1.2 include definitions for both terms, with enough
>     explanation so one can see here how they differ. That may reduce
>     what needs to be said in 6.9. I'm happy to provide a suggestion
>     if you'd like.
>
> ================
> 6.2 General requirements and definitions
>
>     "Please note that publishing as used in this document refers to
>     producing a version which is listed as a W3C Technical Report on
>     its Technical Reports page https://www.w3.org/TR [PUB11]."
>
>     That sentence is a repeat of the first sentence in 6.1.
>
>     Proposed: Delete the sentence in 6.2.
>
> ================
> 6.2.1 General requirements for Technical Reports
>
>     "An editor must be a participant, as a Member representative, Team
>     representative, or Invited Expert". I'm not sure of the value
>     of spelling out the types of participant.
>
>     Proposed: "An editor must be a participant (see section 5.2.1) in
>     the Group responsible for the document(s) being edited."
>
>
> ================
> 6.2.5 Classes of Changes
>
>     s/Examples of changes in this class are/Examples of changes in this class include:/
>
>     s/such changes do not belong to this class../such changes do not fall into this class./
>
>     For the second edit note that:
>         - the first sentence of bullet 2 uses the phrase "fall into this class"
>           which I suggest repeating here.
>         - double period => single period
>
> ================
> 6.6 W3C Recommendation
>
>     "The decision to advance a document to Recommendation is a W3C
>     Decision." This sentence is the only one of its kind in the document.
>     Section 7 defines W3C decision:
>
>       "A W3C decision is one where the Director (or the Director's
>       delegate) has exercised the role of assessing consensus after an
>       Advisory Committee review."
>
>     And if you follow the link to AC review you see a list of things:
>
>
>      * new and modified Working and Interest Groups,
>      * Proposed Recommendations, Proposed Edited Recommendations, Proposal to Rescind a Recommendation, and
>      * Proposed changes to the W3C process.
>
>     None of the other corresponding sections of the document have an
>     outright statement that "this is a W3C decision" other than 6.6.
>
>     Proposed: Delete "The decision to advance a document to
>     Recommendation is a W3C Decision." as redundant.
>
> ================
> 6.7.2 Revising a Recommendation
>
>     "Such publications may be called a Proposed Edited Recommendation."
>
>     I am not aware that we call them anything else. Furthermore, I think
>     it would create confusion if we called the same thing by different
>     names, especially after a tradition of calling them PERs.
>
>     Proposed: Change to:
>
>       "Such publications are called Proposed Edited Recommendations."
>
> ================
> 6.8 Publishing a Working Group or Interest Group Note
>
>    ------------
>    "Working Groups and Interest Groups publish material that is not a
>    formal specification as Notes. ... as well as specifications ..."
>
>    This paragraph includes mildly self-contradictory statements.
>
>    Proposed: Change the paragraph (with new bulleted list) to:
>
>      "Working Groups and Interest Groups MAY publish Notes for a
>       variety of reasons, including:
>
>         * supporting documentation for a specification such as
>           explanations of design principles or use cases and requirements,
>         * non-normative guides to good practices, and
>         * specifications where work has been stopped and there is no
>           longer consensus for publishing them as Recommendations."
>
>    ------------
>    "may remain a Working Group Note indefinitely"
>
>    This section is about both WG and IG Notes.
>
>    Proposed: Delete "Working Group"
>
> ================
> 6.9 Obsoleting or Rescinding a W3C Recommendation
>
>    -------------
>    I think some of the terminology could be simplified.
>
>    * I suggest using the word "Restore" when referring to undoing
>      a previous decision to rescind or obsolete a Rec.
>    * I suggest avoiding "obsoletion" and "rescindment"; see
>      concrete suggestions below.
>
>    -------------
>    "W3C may rescind a Recommendation, for example ..."
>    "W3C may obsolete a Recommendation, for example "
>
>    Please start with an introductory sentence to frame the
>    discussion.
>
>    Proposed:
>
>     "From time to time, W3C may find it necessary to undo a
>      Recommendation. W3C uses a similar process but different
>      terminology to distinguish the severity of new advice
>
>      - "Rescinded Recommendation": W3C no longer recommends
>       this technology and is extremely unlikely to restore it.
>
>      - "Obsoleted Recommendation": W3C no longer recommends
>       this technology but there is a reasonable chance W3C
>       could restore it.
>
>     W3C might rescind a Recommendation when:
>
>      * W3C concludes it contains many errors that conflict with a later
>        version, or
>      * W3C discovers burdensome patent claims that affect implementers
>        and cannot be resolved; see the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33] and
>        in particular section 5 (bullet 10) and section 7.5.
>
>     W3C might obsolete a Recommendation when:
>
>      * W3C concludes it no longer represents best practices, or
>      * Industry has not adopted the technology and future
>        adoption seems unlikely."
>
>    -------------
>     Proposed: Change
>
>           "Obsoletion may be reversed, using the same process as for
>            obsoleting a Recommendation, if for example a specification
>            is later more broadly adopted."
>
>        to:
>
>            "W3C uses the same process for obsoleting or restoring a
>            Recommendation."
>
>        Note that you don't need to talk about the scenario since that's
>        already listed earlier.
>
>    -------------
>     Proposed: Change
>
>            "The Director must begin a review of a proposal to obsolete,
>            un-obsolete or rescind a Recommendation when requested to do
>            so by any of the following:"
>
>        to:
>
>            "The Director MUST begin a review of a proposal to obsolete,
> 	  rescind, or restore a Recommendation when requested to do so
> 	  by any of the following:"
>
>    -------------
>     Proposed: Change
>
>           "Any individual who made a request to the relevant Working
>           Group as described above, or the TAG if such a group does not
>           exist, to consider a Recommendation for obsoletion or
>           rescindment, whose request was not answered within 90 days"
>
>       to:
>
>           "Any individual who made a request to the relevant Working
>           Group as described above, or to the TAG if no such group
>           exists, to obsolete or rescind a Recommendation,
>           whose request was not answered within 90 days"
>
>    -------------
>     Proposed: Change
>
>           "indicate that this is a proposal to Rescind, Obsolete, or
>           reverse the Obsoletion of, a Recommendation"
>
>        to:
>
>           "indicate that this is a proposal to Rescind, Obsolete, or
>           Restore a Recommendation"
>
>    -------------
>     Proposed: Change
>
>          "For any review of a proposal to obsolete or rescind a
>          Recommendation the Director must:"
>
>        to:
>
>          "For any review of a proposal to obsolete, rescind, or
>          restore a Recommendation the Director must:"
>
> -------------
>     Proposed: Change
>
>           "publish a rationale for rescinding the Recommendation."
>
>        to:
>
>           "publish rationale for the proposal"
>
>        (Since this process could be about obsolete and restore, too)
>
>    -------------
>    It should be possible for the Director restore a Rescinded
>    Recommendation. We cannot predict the future. Suppose the
>    Director rescinded a Recommendation because of a patent issue
>    but then that patent is invalidated. We might want to restore
>    the Recommendation. The Patent Policy says:
>
>      "If the Recommendation is rescinded by W3C, then no new licenses
>      need be granted but any licenses granted before the Recommendation
>      was rescinded shall remain in effect."
>
>    I believe that allows room to restore a Rescinded Recommendation
>    and get new licenses.
>
>
>    -------------
>     Proposed: Change
>
>           "Note: the original Recommendation document will continue to
>           be available at its version-specific URL."
>
>       to:
>
>           "Note: W3C strives to ensure that any
> 	 Recommendation -- even obsoleted or rescinded --
>           remains available at its original address with
> 	 a status update."
>
>       (Notes: I've modified the text for consistency with similar text
>        in 6.2.1. The concept of "version-specific URL" is not defined
>        in the Process Document. Also, I think we should make
>        clear that we do intend to provide a status update.)
>
> ================
> 7.1.1 Start of a Review Period
>
>     "review form"
>
>     This feels like an implementation detail to me.
>
>     Proposed: s/The review form/The Call for Review/
>
> ================
> 8 Workshops and Symposia
>
>     According to the archives of W3C Workshops:
>        https://www.w3.org/2003/08/Workshops/archive
>
>     There has been exactly one event in 21 years with the word
>     "Symposium" in the title.
>
>     The Process Document does not indicate any material difference
>     between the two.
>
>     Proposed:
>        * Remove the concept of Symposium from the Process Document
>
>     Note that nothing prevents someone from organizing a W3C
>     Workshop with "Symposium" in the title.
>
> ================
> 12.1 Public Resources
>
>     * PUB25: The link is 404. Should be:
>       https://www.w3.org/2004/10/27-tag-charter.html
>
> ================
> 12.2 Member-only Resources
>
>     * MEM3: See earlier comment; this has been deprecated
>     * MEM4: Now called "Process, Patent Policy, Finances Guide"
>             Meanwhile, there is a different resource called
>             "Member Intro and FAQ" https://www.w3.org/Member/faq.html
> 	   Perhaps MEM4 should be updated to point there (with the
> 	   current title)
>     * MEM9: This resource is now public and should be moved up to 12.1
>
> ================
> OTHER COMMENTS:
>
>   * I expected to see mention of the Code of Ethics and Professional
>     Conduct: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/
>
>     One place to include it: 3.1 Individual Participation Criteria.
>
>   * Minor editorial:
>
>     6.1: s/member review/Member review
>     6.1.2: s/as per/per
>     6.1.2: s/review which begins/review that begins/
>     6.7.1: s/Working groups may/Working Groups may/
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 7 August 2016 03:12:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 7 August 2016 03:12:54 UTC