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

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

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 15:42:20 -0400
To: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <d719f3e7-93f9-68dc-0a1c-b9944991a687@w3.org>


On 08/25/2016 01:50 PM, David Singer wrote:
>
>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 10:11 , Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>> The proposed Process 2016 introduces the following:
>> [[
>> Transition requests to First Public Working Draft or Candidate Recommendation will not normally be approved while a Working Group's charter is undergoing, or awaiting a Director's decision on, an Advisory Committee Review, until the Director issues a Call for Participation for the Working Group.
>> ]]
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/cfef536bff0d/cover.html
>>
>> Depending on the interpretation, this addition may be either overly restrictive (1) or doesn't have effects (2).
>>
>> (1) If the sentence is intended to prevent Groups from publishing FPWD and CR within 60 days of the end of their charter period, it will have unintended side-effects imho.
>
> Not exactly. I think it’s trying to deal with the problem that the new charter can’t identify the drafts that are adopted that are ‘under the patent policy’ if they are published and become such AFTER the charter is frozen and sent for review.
>
> Yes, there are edge cases: where the draft in question will in fact be taken up by a different group at a later date, for example (but does this ever occur)?

We did that recently for Web Platform Working Group (adopted the drafts 
from WebApps and HTML) or for ARIA (adopted the drafts from WAI PF). It 
depends on how you define "different group".

> So I think at least some of what you say below doesn’t apply. It’s not connected to the charter period, it’s connected to approval of the new charter and having it correctly document the carried-over work that’s “under the patent policy”.

Let's take the recent example of the Web performance working group:

On June 2, we extended their charter until end of July 31, 2016 and sent 
a new charter for review to the AC.

On July 21, we published the CR for Resource Timing Level 1.

On July 22, ie less than 60 days after the start of the AC review, we 
rechartered the Group under the new charter.

Do you believe that this would be allowed under Process 2016?

Philippe
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2016 19:42:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 30 August 2016 19:42:24 UTC