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

Re: fixing process regression related to typo fixes

From: <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:24:04 +0200
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, David Singer <singer@mac.com>
Cc: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <51681474287844@webcorp01d.yandex-team.ru>
Very quick reply - I think we can effectively do a quick revert without a lot of problem. Not today, probably not until Wednesday.

cheers

19.09.2016, 12:38, "Stephen Zilles" <szilles@adobe.com>:
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: David Singer [mailto:singer@mac.com]
>>  Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 4:59 PM
>>  To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
>>  Cc: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>; L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>; public-
>>  w3process@w3.org; Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
>>  Subject: Re: fixing process regression related to typo fixes
>>
>>  Steve
>>
>>  I think we should look at a simple revert as the first course, rather than
>>  writing new text, as new text may have new unintended effects. Is it not
>>  possible to ‘revert and think harder’ as suggested?
>
> Unfortunately, a simple revert is not possible because the paragraph in question has changed significantly over the various versions of the Process Document
>
> In the 2005 document it says,
> "The first two classes of change require no technical review of the proposed changes, although a Working Group MAY issue a Call for Review. The modified Recommendation is published according to the Team's requirements, including Publication Rules [PUB31]."
>
> The "first two classes" were split in Process 2014 and the Editorial Change paragraph became,
> "Editorial changes to a Recommendation require no technical review of the proposed changes. A Working Group may request publication of a Proposed Recommendation or W3C may publish a Proposed Recommendation to make this class of change without passing through earlier maturity levels. Such publications are may be called a Proposed Edited Recommendation."
>
> This is when the (objected to) requirement to go to PR instead of directly to "modified REC" was introduced. This paragraph was further modified in Process 2015 to,
> "Editorial changes to a Recommendation require no technical review of the proposed changes. A Working Group, provided there are no votes against the resolution to publish may request publication of a Proposed Recommendation or W3C may publish a Proposed Recommendation to make this class of change without passing through earlier maturity levels. Such publications may be called a Proposed Edited Recommendation."
>
> That is, the provision, " provided there are no votes against the resolution" was added to help insure that only non-substantive changes were being made, at least from the viewpoint of the Working Group.
>
> For these reasons, the suggested edit below seemed the most direct way to implement the intent of the proposed "regression".
>
> Steve Z
>>  > On Sep 13, 2016, at 12:52 , Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote:
>>  >
>>  >> -----Original Message-----
>>  >> From: Jeff Jaffe [mailto:jeff@w3.org]
>>  >> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 4:35 PM
>>  >> To: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
>>  >> Cc: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>; L. David Baron
>>  >> <dbaron@dbaron.org>; public-w3process@w3.org; Tantek Çelik
>>  >> <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
>>  >> Subject: Re: fixing process regression related to typo fixes
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >> On 9/12/2016 5:21 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>  >>>> On Sep 12, 2016, at 11:47 , Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>>> I do believe that the change in the Process 2014 document was a
>>  >> conscious choice and not an accident. The main argument for the
>>  >> change was that can anyone tell (without review) whether an editorial
>>  >> change is truly editorial. That is why the all text changes became
>>  >> reviewable. This argument is stated in more detail in
>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Oct/0145
>>  >>>>> .h tml from Wayne Carr which is a response to Elika's message that
>>  >>>>> you point to above. Wayne suggests several other ways to get the
>>  >>>>> necessary
>>  >> review, but does not believe that they are improvements.
>>  >>>>>
>>  >>>>> Any change in this area should have wider discussion prior to
>>  >>>>> changing the
>>  >> process.
>>  >>>> I think David's issue is important and I would encourage you to
>>  >>>> entertain
>>  >> such a wider discussion during your TPAC presentation. Let's hear
>>  >> what the Membership has to say!
>>  >>>>
>>  >>> The whole question of how we verify that a change is ‘merely
>>  >>> editorial’ is
>>  >> tricky. People write the dangdest patents (e.g. one I recall being
>>  >> told of only applied if the bits in a structure were in a specific
>>  >> order). Without detailed patent searches for everything, one can
>>  >> never be *sure* that an edit hasn’t changed encumbrances, I fear.
>>  >>>
>>  >>> I wonder how many on the AC will actually open a Proposed Edited Rec
>>  >>> when
>>  >> the changes are believed to be editorial, and check? Are they more or
>>  >> less likely to know than the working group participants?
>>  >>>
>>  >>> Perhaps it’s more important to say that there is a chance for the WG
>>  >> members and their AC Reps to object to a proposed edited rec., and if
>>  >> there is no objection, it’s published? If there IS objection, somehow
>>  >> we’d have to decide as a community whether the edit truly is
>>  >> ‘substantive’, and I am not sure how to do that. Presumably the objector
>>  has a good reason...
>>  >>>
>>  >>> I am intrigued by Wayne’s suggestion that the license commitment of
>>  >>> an
>>  >> Edited Recommendation be exactly the same as the Recommendation that
>>  >> it edited, as this protects the IPR owners from accidentally
>>  >> introducing a newly licensed thing unintentionally. On the other hand
>>  >> it leaves implementers implementing something which has accidentally
>>  >> incorporated an unlicensed thing. I think that this effect would be,
>>  >> if it happened, worked out in the courts, and I think we’d best be silent
>>  about it.
>>  >>>
>>  >>> Summary: I would be happy to revert to pre-2014 as long as we discuss
>>  it.
>>  >> The reason I am ok with revert is that it’s lighterweight, and we
>>  >> didn’t suffer much under the previous regime. But only as long as we
>>  discuss.
>>  >>
>>  >> I agree with your Summary.
>>  >>
>>  >> For me, there is a known certainty (the last two years) that the
>>  >> current system hurts agility (vignettes from Elika, David, Tantek, and PLH).
>>  >> There is a theoretical corner case that the previous system has a
>>  >> tiny patent exposure. For me certain agility trumps theoretical tiny patent
>>  exposure.
>>  >
>>  > I am detecting, so far, significant support for loosening the
>>  > requirements on "Editorial Changes" (Note this is not just typos; it
>>  > includes all textual changes that are deemed by the Working Group to
>>  > not affect conformance to the specification.)
>>  >
>>  > It appears to me that the main argument for this is that (1) if the Working
>>  Group does not believe it changed conformance who is better at doing that
>>  AND (2) it seems unlikely that people will actually do a patent search against
>>  editorial changes.
>>  >
>>  > I, too, liked the idea that Patent Licensing Commitments do not change for
>>  Edited Recommendations (because there has been no Disclosure Opportunity
>>  since they did not go through another CR (nor PER).
>>  >
>>  > To move the discussion to a concrete change proposal, I suggest the
>>  following:
>>  >
>>  > Current:
>>  > Editorial changes to a Recommendation require no technical review of the
>>  proposed
>>  > changes. A Working Group, provided there are no votes against the
>>  resolution to
>>  > publish may request publication of a Proposed Recommendation or W3C
>>  may publish
>>  > a Proposed Recommendation to make this class of change without passing
>>  through
>>  > earlier maturity levels. Such publications may be called a Proposed
>>  > Edited Recommendation
>>  >
>>  > Replacement:
>>  > Editorial changes to a Recommendation require no technical review of the
>>  proposed
>>  > changes. A Working Group, provided there are no votes against the
>>  resolution to
>>  > publish may request publication of an Edited Recommendation or W3C
>>  may publish
>>  > an Edited Recommendation to make this class of change without passing
>>  through
>>  > earlier maturity levels.
>>  >
>>  > I have deleted the sentence, " Such publications may be called a Proposed
>>  Edited Recommendation” as being redundant after the change, especially
>>  since another suggested change has changed the MAY to an "are".
>>  >
>>  > I think it would be useful to say that the version number should be updated,
>>  but since such publications are dated, the new date may suffice to distinguish
>>  it from prior versions.
>>  >
>>  > Note there is a sentence lower in the subsection that the above
>>  > sentence on Editorial changes occurs in that says,
>>  >
>>  > When requesting the publication of an edited Recommendation as
>>  described
>>  > in this section, in addition to meeting the requirements for the relevant
>>  > maturity level, a Working Group
>>  >
>>  > * must show that the changes to the document have received wide
>>  review, and
>>  > * should address all recorded errata.
>>  >
>>  > Having had wide review of the Edited Recommendation prior to publication
>>  seems like a good thing. For an Edited Recommendation that is only doing
>>  editorial changes, it may not be possible to address all errata since some of
>>  those may involve substantive changes. Perhaps the second bullet should
>>  read,
>>  > * should address all recorded errata, or if only Editorial Changes are
>>  made,
>>  > all errata that can be address by an Editorial Change.
>>  >
>>  > Steve Z
>>
>>  Dave Singer
>>
>>  singer@mac.com

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Monday, 19 September 2016 12:24:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 19 September 2016 12:24:37 UTC