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

RE: Revised Section 6.9 based on Ian Jacobs re-write and comments thereon

From: Stephen Zilles <steve@zilles.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:09:18 -0700
To: "'David Singer'" <singer@mac.com>, <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: <public-w3process@w3.org>, <ab@w3.org>
Message-ID: <018c01d2233a$9092f0b0$b1b8d210$@zilles.org>
I, too, am fine with your text, provided the un-rescinding sentence is removed.

Steve Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@mac.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 12:58 PM
> To: chaals@yandex-team.ru
> Cc: Stephen Zilles <steve@zilles.org>; public-w3process@w3.org; ab@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Revised Section 6.9 based on Ian Jacobs re-write and comments
> thereon
> 
> yes, what you wrote seemed fine by me, with the removal of reversing
> rescinsion
> 
> thx for the hard work
> 
> 
> > On Oct 10, 2016, at 12:13 , chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
> >
> > The actual text in the draft is a bit different. I believe you guys both signed
> off on it today, modulo the agreed changes, which I have made in my private
> repo and will present as soon as I can.
> >
> > 10.10.2016, 16:21, "David Singer" <singer@mac.com>:
> >> I think this still needs work.
> >>
> >>>  On Oct 9, 2016, at 20:36 , Stephen Zilles <steve@zilles.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  The following revision of the (revised) section 6.9 of the Process
> Document was prepared based on the discussion at the TPAC AC Meeting and
> comments by Steve Zilles, David Singer and Ian Jacobs on Ian Jacobs’ prior
> proposed text for this section.
> >>>
> >>>  The main changes are:
> >>>  1. Being consistent about the ordering in which “rescind, obsolete
> >>> and restore” are mentioned when they are used;  2. Change “necessary
> >>> to undo a Recommendation” to “necessary to change the status of a
> >>> Recommendation”;  3. To change the definition of a Rescinded
> >>> Recommendation to indicate that there is no process to restore it;  4. To
> give the restoration process equal status to those for rescinding or obsoleting
> a Recommendation and to indicate that only Obsoleted Recommendations
> can be restored;  5. Moved “contains many errors that conflict with a later
> version” as a cause for action from rescinding to obsoleting because
> rescinding an earlier version may remove patent protection from the later
> versions. With the addition of obsoleting, rescinding is no longer necessary in
> this case.
> >>>
> >>>  It is believed that these changes are editorial; there are no changes to
> the actual process used for these three cases (rescinding, obsoleting or
> restoring).
> >>>
> >>>  Steve Z
> >>>  6.9 Obsoleting or Rescinding a W3C Recommendation
> >>>
> >>>  From time to time, W3C may find it necessary to change the status of a
> Recommendation. W3C uses a similar process but different terminology to
> distinguish two types of change:
> >>>  - "Rescinded Recommendation": W3C no longer recommends this
> technology and does not intend to restore it to Recommendation status.
> >>>  - "Obsoleted Recommendation": W3C no longer recommends this
> technology but there is a reasonable chance W3C could restore it to
> Recommendation status.
> >>
> >> I think these bullets say something different from the following
> explanations, and I don’t think I agree with them. Can we simply delete them?
> >>
> >>>  W3C might rescind a Recommendation when:
> >>>  · 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 might obsolete a Recommendation when:
> >>>  · W3C concludes it no longer represents best practices, or  · This
> >>> version contains many errors that conflict with a later version, or
> >>> · Industry has not adopted the technology and future adoption seems
> unlikely.
> >>>
> >>>  W3C might restore an Obsoleted Recommendation when:
> >>>  · W3C finds the Recommendation is being used and is not conflict with
> later versions, if they exist.
> >>
> >> I would prefer to say that we no longer believe the Recommendation
> should be considered obsolete. (If you keep the text, insert ‘in’ after ‘with’).
> >>
> >>>  W3C uses the same process for rescinding, obsoleting or restoring a
> Recommendation. W3C only rescinds, obsoletes or restore entire
> Recommendations. To rescind or obsolete some part of a Recommendation,
> W3C follows the process for modifying a Recommendation.
> >>>
> >>>  For the purposes of the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33] an Obsolete
> Recommendation has the status of an active Recommendation, although it is
> not recommended for future implementation; a Rescinded Recommendation
> ceases to be in effect and no new licenses are granted under the Patent
> Policy.
> >>>
> >>>  The Director may recommend rescinding, obsoleting or restoring a
> Recommendation. The Director must begin a review of a proposal to
> obsolete, rescind, or restore a Recommendation when requested to do so by
> any of the following:
> >>>
> >>>          • The Working Group who produced, or is chartered to maintain,
> the Recommendation.
> >>>          • The TAG, if there is no such Working Group
> >>>          • Any individual who made a request to the relevant Working Group
> as described above, or the TAG if such a group does not exist, to obsolete,
> rescind, or restore a Recommendation, whose request was not answered
> within 90 days
> >>>          • 5% of the members of the Advisory Committee  For any
> >>> review of a proposal to rescind, obsolete, or restore a Recommendation
> the Director must:
> >>>
> >>>          • Announce the proposal to all Working Group Chairs, and to the
> Public.
> >>>          • indicate that this is a proposal to rescind, obsolete, or restore a
> Recommendation
> >>>          • identify the Recommendation by URL.
> >>>          • publish a rationale for the proposal.
> >>>          • identify known dependencies and solicit review from all
> dependent Working Groups
> >>>          • solicit public review
> >>>          • specify the deadline for review comments, which must be
> >>> at least four weeks after the Director's announcement  and should
> >>>
> >>>          • identify known implementations  If there was any dissent
> >>> in Advisory Committee reviews, the Director must publish the substantive
> content of the dissent to W3C and the public, and mustformally address the
> dissent at least 14 days before publication as an Rescinded or Obsoleted
> Recommendation or republished as a Recommendation.
> >>
> >> mustformally space missing
> >>
> >>>  The Advisory Committee may initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal of
> the Director's decision.
> >>>
> >>>  An Obsolete or Rescinded Recommendation must be published with up
> to date status. The updated version may remove the main body of the
> document. The Status of this Document section should link to an explanation
> of the Obsolete or Rescinded status as appropriate.
> >>>
> >>>  A restored Recommendation must be published with up to date status
> that notes that this Recommendation had temporarily been Obsoleted but is
> now, once again, recommended.
> >>>
> >>>  Once W3C has published a Rescinded Recommendation, future W3C
> technical reports must not include normative references to that technical
> report.
> >>>
> >>>  Note: W3C strives to ensure that any Recommendation -- even obsoleted
> or rescinded -- remains available at its original address with a status update.
> >>
> >> Dave Singer
> >>
> >> singer@mac.com
> >
> > --
> > Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> > chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
> 
> Dave Singer
> 
> singer@mac.com
Received on Monday, 10 October 2016 21:10:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 10 October 2016 21:10:19 UTC