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

Re: Requested addition to section 7.1

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 05:51:09 +0100
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <858a8020-1e5c-b2a4-3216-b4835c796d8d@disruptive-innovations.com>
On 23/12/2016 19:49, Michael Champion wrote:

> Thanks for that explanation of something that seemed like a very minor point to me until this thread clarified it.  As an advocate of incubation in WICG or other CGS, I had thought of incubation as  NECESSARY condition for going on the Rec Track – solid proposal with buy in from implementers and users – and not a SUFFICIENT condition.  It’s apparently not clear enough that WGs make the decision to accept the output of WICG, not the WICG itself.  In practice, they will usually be the same people, but in case they are not, there should be no doubt that WICG incubation is not shortcut around the WP or CSS WG’s review proess.

Let's remember that having documents incubated in the CG that are not
yet chartered in the WG *is one of the main goals*, right?

Whatever the relationship between an incubation CG and the WG taking
over for the REC track, the WG still has a Deliverables section in
its Charter. ACs made it VERY clear recently that the Deliverables
section cannot be extended by simple will of the WG itself, and that
a corresponding prose for that in the Charter is not acceptable.

So even if incubation goes fast, has a clear patent landscape, collects
feedback and consensus, the subsequent WG may be unable to accept that
REC-track work before a Charter amendment or a rechartering (of course
unless Waye Carr's proposal for CG controlled by WG is our CG's case,
and that is _not_ the case for WICG)... And I don't even mention the
case where the WG is not interested by that work.

That is going to take the same time as usual (qualified as "too much"
by the always same usual suspects) and will only lead to one thing:
vendors shipping implementations conformant to the documents that went
out of incubation, not the documents resulting from the REC track, ages
later. We will still need Editor's Drafts to avoid blocking work, we
will remain borderline with the Patent Policy, Editor's Drafts will
remain implemented and too often shipped; nothing will change, I
can bet a box of cookies on it. What we had to change was our charter
amendment/rechartering speed and easyness.

</Daniel>
Received on Saturday, 24 December 2016 04:51:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 24 December 2016 04:51:35 UTC