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

Re: W3C Process 2016: Charter extensions and 60 days publication blackouts

From: Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 07:15:41 +0000
To: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
Cc: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20160830071541.GI19807@people.w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 04:54:43PM -0700, David Singer wrote:
> 
> There are also PP FAQ updates that have been discussed, but (a) they are the prerogative of PSIG and (b) can be made at any time. This is the ???matching??? process change.
 
Is there a draft of the revised PP FAQ yet? (it would be good to have one, it might
also help in making sure that there's no hole in the process)

> > Concretely, the 60 days without FPWD is not sufficient if we have "Reference Drafts" 
> > that can be published less than 90 days after FPWD, so for consistency, there should be
> > a second condition forbidding to update a FPWD published less than 90 days before 
> > the start of the review. OR (I prefer that, actually) we use "FPWD" instead of 
> > Reference Draft in the wording. That second option matches the current implementation
> > (Ref Draft = FPWD, as long as there's no WG change).
> 
> I think there are two questions being mixed in here, and it???s worth teasing them apart.
> 
> a) Can I write a charter that clearly delineates which documents are ???under the patent policy??? as the group forms? Clearly, if documents go ???under the policy??? AFTER the charter was written, the answer is no. Hence the restriction on doing transitions AFTER the charter text is written and being reviewed.  Do we all agree that those are things that this group will be working on and responsible for ???ab initio????


Currently if a WG starts a new FPWD while its rechartering is already at AC review stage,
the new FPWD is not covered in the new charter unless it is mentioned explicitly as
deliverable. If that FPWD was NOT mentioned as a deliverable in the active charter, it 
is not possible to publish it anyway.
So I'm not sure there's a good reason for that restriction, really, The charter under 
review will now include all documents published (new requirement on charters) and the 
future deliverables (as before). If a document, published during the review period 
or not, was omitted, then too bad, you're good for another rechartering. 
If it was mentioned as a future deliverable in the charter under review, but published 
during the review (unlikely, I think), then the triggered CfE won't be completed until 
the end of the WG. The proposed 60d delay should really be a >90d (delay for
leaving the group without commitment), or no delay + a new CfE starts with the new
group (as we do with a group change, latest draft is a Ref Draft). Currently, implicit 
continuation means CfE continues, and new members have to exclude upon joining.

> 
> b) For anyone joining this newly chartered group at its beginning, they might wish to file an exclusion on such drafts. If they were members of the originating group, they are aware of it and have been tracking it, but there may be new members. Because the list of drafts is in the charter, they can prepare any exclusion they need to file if given enough time; for various complex reasons, we chose 60 days as the minimum interval for the newcomers to be allowed to think. Otherwise newcomers might be forced to delay their join until after the group ahs formed and started work.


If we apply a CfE for any FPWD published during charter review (i.e. mentioned as a 
deliverable in the charter, but has been published in the meantime), newcomers have the
90d delay to leave, and 150d exclusion period. They don't need to delay.


 
> > 
> > OK, if it really covers all the scenarios, but I don't think it does with the current 
> > wording. Transitioning could be particularly tricky in some cases (e.g. drafts
> > published by more than 1 WG that are not scheduled to be rechartered simultaneously,
> > and that is just 1 example, there are probably other cases). It's always better to
> > anticipate than discover afterwards that we have not sufficiently tested the new rules.
> 
> I completely agree.  Perhaps there are some questions of ???joint deliverables??? we should explore.
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2016 07:15:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 30 August 2016 07:15:48 UTC