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

Re: Obsoleting

From: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 15:11:56 -0700
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-id: <2E1AD84D-BB14-4350-A3D2-51FAB018FA74@mac.com>
To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>

here are two draft texts

1) add a new section, closely modeled on Rescinding, that deals only with Obsoleting.
2) A combined section, where 90%+ of the text is common, dealing with both Obsoleting and Rescinding.

I note that there are confusing aspects of the current Rescinding process.  For example, one has to show that the request has had Wide Review, and then we ask again for Public Review and review by the W3C. Why both?  I deleted the Wide Review clause.

Similarly, the Director has to show he’s starting the process because of public comment, but then any initiation has to include rationale. Why the Director can’t simply supply Rationale (including, if he has it, public comment) is not clear. So I removed this unique requirement on only the Director.

Some of the paragraphs were in a funny place; e.g. the requirement that you shouldn’t refer to a Rescinded recommendation was in the middle of the process, whereas logically it follows at the end of the process, once Rescinsion has happened.

I was in two minds as to whether the TAG can only be used if the WG doesn’t exist, but this opens the whole question of whether this is the ‘same’ WG; I think it safer always to allow the TAG to do it.

I can’t say I am enthused about fixing the Rescind process, as we have never (?) used it. On the other hand, I am not enthused about having two similar steps with slightly different processes, nor of having odd bits of the process with bugs (e.g. you can’t appeal a decision if it’s bizarre but there wasn’t preceding dissent), so on balance I think the combined clause makes more sense.

Drafts enclosed, change-tracked in Word.  Let me know if you cannot open them.

> On May 10, 2016, at 16:30 , Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 2016-05-09 16:42, David Singer wrote:
>>> On May 9, 2016, at 9:14 , L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
>>> (The one other thing I was worried about with this obsoletion
>>> discussion was that it might be creating a process that's hard
>>> enough to complete that it will never be used successfully.)
>> It does seem very heavy, but only because of the fail-safe valves in some places.  Those valves are actually missing from the Rescind process as well, so we could make it all much easier and adjust the section on Rescinding to cover both cases. (For example, we have no way to Rescind a document if the WG no longer exists; there is no way for the AC to over-ride a bad WG decision, or to proceed in the absence of a decision.)
>> * Anyone suggest to the owning Working Group (if it exists) or the TAG (otherwise) that a document be Obsoleted or Rescinded.
>> * That group does the technical sanity check etc.
>> * The AC votes
>> * The Director approves
>> * The team does the appropriate marking/editing.
>> Safety valves: AC can override the WG/TAG ’no' if someone can find 5% of the AC wanting to force a ballot. If the WG/TAG doesn’t act in 90 days, anyone can force it to the AC by saying “timeout!”. The AC can appeal the final Director decision.
> +1
> combining them is good, as is listing the safety valve exceptional case separately.  that makes it clear it almost always is very simple.  i think its a good model for a lot of decisions.
>> Dave Singer
>> singer@mac.com

Dave Singer


Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2016 22:12:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 May 2016 22:12:29 UTC