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

RE: Obsoleting

From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 03:24:05 +0000
To: David Singer <singer@mac.com>, Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
CC: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <knoa0qp30nrpp7r2qfc44dyy.1463023444368@email.android.com>

David,
I am unable to see some of the bulleted items in your word file so I can not comment on your proposal in full, but see below.

Steve Z


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

-------- Original message --------
From: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
Date: 5/12/16 2:43 AM (GMT+03:30)
To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
Subject: Re: Obsoleting

OK

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.

SZ: the reason the are two 2 reviews is that the first review is to the public and W3Cand the 2nd is a private review by the AC. This follows the model of the final two steps of all REC TRACK actions.

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Some of the paragraphs were in a funny place; e.g. the requirement that you shouldn’t refer to a Rescinded recommendation was in the middle of the process, whereas logically it follows at the end of the process, once Rescinsion has happened.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

SZ: As to the question of "same Working Group", I had the thought that every Working Group Charter should list the specifications (other than already rescinded or obsoleted ones) that that WG owns. Then it would be clear whether a specification is owned by a WG or not. This would avoid having both the WG and the TAG being simultaneously responsible.

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.

Received on Thursday, 12 May 2016 03:24:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 12 May 2016 03:24:36 UTC