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

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

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 12:37:02 -0400
Cc: Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <8A5829B4-4588-4D41-9A91-EFBC8592AF7D@apple.com>
To: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Have we captured Ian’s comments here that are both non-editorial and not related to the Process2016 changes as such?


> On Aug 5, 2016, at 18:46 , Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> 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."
> 
> ===============
> 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."
> 
> ===============
> 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.
> 
> ================
> 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."
> 
> ================
> 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>
> 
> ================
> 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
> 
> 
> 

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2016 16:37:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 23 August 2016 16:37:37 UTC