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

RE: Obsoleting a Recommendation, round four

From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 03:47:48 +0000
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>, Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>
Message-ID: <l29sj23xxemrcyl1c7hoay00.1462592862982@email.android.com>




Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7 edge, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: 5/6/16 11:12 PM (GMT+03:30)
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org, Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>, Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>
Subject: Re: Obsoleting a Recommendation, round four


> On May 6, 2016, at 10:38 , Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> I think your general structure works. Some minor details below.
>
> Steve Z
>
>
>
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7 edge, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
> Date: 5/6/16 8:59 PM (GMT+03:30)
> To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
> Cc: public-w3process@w3.org, Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>, Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>
> Subject: Re: Obsoleting a Recommendation, round four
>
>
> > On May 6, 2016, at 7:49 , Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> > We still have pending how the TAG ‘announces to the other groups’ that they are considering this.  AC (not technical).  In their agenda (who reads it?). Chairs list (relies on the chairs forwarding to relevant groups)?  I tend to think both of the last two: put it in their agenda and notify the chairs.  Actually, thinking about it, maybe the TAG agenda should always go to the chairs?
> >
> > SZ: I think requiring the chairs to read an agenda to find out anything is a bad idea. There should be an announcement of the "Proposal to Obsolete a Recommendation" that includes the REC name in the subject line to the Public Announcement list that the AB had created and to the chairs list. That allows the reader to quickly tell whether to open the message or not.
> >
>
>
>
> I don’t want to be overly prescriptive in the process document, or we’ll be revising it to tune to practice.
> SZ: I agree with this principle.
>
> Perhaps from a formal process point of view, we simply state that the TAG needs to inform the W3C community that they will discuss this, and when, and leave it up to evolving practice?
>
> so, how about we say:
>
> The TAG MUST announce its intent to consider the
> SZ: c/intent to consider/receipt of a/

OK, but if it’s receipt, you won’t get a date on when they’ll consider it (i.e. a deadline to supply comments).
SZ: I think the 90 days begins on receipt, on the announcement. How else can anyone outside the TAG monitor the 90 day period.

> Request to Obsolete the Recommendation to the W3C community and to the public, and SHOULD consult with
> SZ: is "W3C Commumity" defined in the Process Document? I thought the requirement that I originally copied said "Working Groups" which is defined and relevant.

I think that the process document defines what a Working Group is, true.  I don’t think it defines what ‘Working Groups’ as a contact point is, does it?  Again, we could be prescriptive and say the chairs list, and trust the chairs to inform the groups that might care?

> But, should "Community Groups" also be notified. Maybe we should define "W3C Community" to be the groups we think should be notified.
SZ: yes, we should define as you suggest.
I also think the Process Document should specify where the Notification Method for each group is specified, if it is not specified in the Process Document.

The point of the notification is to try to flush out any groups we might not think of, and anyway, this pre-dates TAG consideration and it’s the TAG we’re asking to try to think who might care.

>
> any pertinent working groups, especially the Working Group that developed the Recommendation, if it exists, or any obvious successor WG. The TAG MUST make the decision to proceed, by formal decision of the TAG.
>
> SZ: How about replacing the last sentence with, "If the TAG makes a decision, it MUST do so using its formal decision process."
>
> Should that last ‘MUST” be a SHOULD, now we have two other alternatives (5% of the AC, or timeout of the TAG)?

Maybe we can delete the phrase, and put it in the first of the three conditions for proceeding to ballot, i,e. “1) The TAG formally decides to proceed”…
SZ: I agree with your suggested change.
>
>
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Saturday, 7 May 2016 03:48:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 7 May 2016 03:48:19 UTC