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

RE: Obsoleting

From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 18:36:58 +0000
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <tmfshsk607t1j9boyqthg8h2.1463078214916@email.android.com>

See comments below


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

-------- Original message --------
From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: 5/12/16 9:20 PM (GMT+03:30)
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Subject: Re: Obsoleting


> On May 12, 2016, at 6:40 , Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>
> In general part of our objective for the past several years has been a reduction of the length of the process document.
>
> It is hard to get enthusiastic to add so much text for something so rarely used.
>
> I confess I don't have an immediate fix to my issue.
>
> Jeff

well, the version that has one section for both rescinding and obsoleting doesn’t add so much,  and it fixes a number of bugs in the Rescind process at the time (not that we ever use it). But agreed, it still seems awfully heavy and formal.

SZ: It should not be easier to retire a REC than to create it.

New versions attached, dealing with comments received.

a) clarify that the group has to *agree* to the request when an individual makes a request of the WG or TAG
b) clarify that the Director doesn’t just announce, but also starts a formal review.

SZ: My request was to have an announcement of the receipt of a request to retire a specification so that people can tell that the clock has started for action on the request and can send comments to the body that is responding to that request. This is where wide review takes place. Doing that at the time of the AC Review is too late to be useful and could lead to wasted AC Reviews.

c) clarify that the publication depends on the Director’s final decision (“before *any* publication…”
d) clarify that contacting all W3C groups means using at least the all-chairs mailing list

here is the combined text inline for those for whom Word tracked-change documents are unreadable:

I also assume that this

Once W3C has published a Rescinded Recommendation, future W3C technical reports must not include normative references to that technical report.

is a typo for

Once W3C has published a Rescinded Recommendation, future W3C technical reports must not include normative references to it. [[i.e. to the Recommendation]]

SZ: Instead of "it" why not say "that retired Recommendation". I believe Technical Report was used because that includes all the REC TRACK document types.

(and why is it limited to Technical Reports?)

* * * *

6.9 Obsoleting or Rescinding a W3C Recommendation

W3C may rescind a Recommendation, for example if the Recommendation contains many errors that conflict with a later version or if W3C discovers burdensome patent claims that affect implementers and cannot be resolved; see the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33] and in particular section 5 (bullet 10) and section 7.5.

W3C may obsolete a Recommendation, for example if the W3C Community feels that the Recommendation no longer represents best practices, or is not adopted and unlikely to be adopted.
In this clause, the word 'retire' is used to refer to either obsoleting or rescinding. W3C only retires entire specifications. To retire some part of a Recommendation, W3C follows the process for modifying a Recommendation.

The process to retire a specification may be initiated:
a)      By anyone on request to the relevant Working Group (if it exists), or the TAG, and that group agrees;
b)      By the Director;
c)      On the request of anyone if their request to the WG or TAG is not acted on in 90 days;
d)      By 5% of the Advisory Committee.

The Director must announce the proposal to retire a W3C Recommendation to other W3C groups using at least the mailing list for all chairs, the public, and by starting an Advisory Committee review. The announcement:
•       must include the rationale for retiring the Recommendation;
•       should document known implementation;
•       must indicate that this is a Proposal to Rescind, or a proposal to Obsolete, a Recommendation;
•       must specify the deadline for review comments, which must be at least four weeks after announcing the proposal;
•       must identify known dependencies and solicit review from all dependent Working Groups;
•       must solicit public review.

If there was any dissent in the Advisory Committee review, the Director must publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C and the public, and must formally address the comment at least 14 days before any publication as a Retired Recommendation. The Advisory Committee may appeal the decision.

A retired Recommendation must be published with up to date status. The status 'Rescinded' or 'Obsoleted' should link to a page explaining the term.

In the case of a Rescinded Recommendation, the updated version may remove the rescinded content (i.e. the main body of the document).

Once W3C has published a Rescinded Recommendation, future W3C technical reports must not include normative references to it.

Note: the original Recommendation document will continue to be available at its version-specific URL.

Received on Thursday, 12 May 2016 18:37:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 12 May 2016 18:37:30 UTC