Re: Continuous Development Process TPAC Slides

On 9/5/19 3:49 PM, David Singer wrote:
>
> I thought we had agreed to separate Registries as a separate, simpler, case, and we’re presenting them separately. Yes, I think the “continuous review” model used by Living Standards (notifications on issues and changes, and the ability to comment) is the right model also for Registries, but even then, Registries are simpler — being atomic, it’s much easier to back out a specific change. So many of the mentions of Registries should be in the Registries report.

We are using the same slides for the Plenary presentation, so we need a 
summary of the proposed registry changes to go with that. For the AC we'll be 
skimming over the registries info; but it's still good to mention that it's 
part of what we're working on. The improvements all work together to solve the 
use cases, so we want to make sure the AC can see the big picture.

> The Design Intentions does not say what the AB has repeatedly said: that a simple Living Standards process and improving the Rec. Track are not in opposition, and we could do either or both.

I've reworked that slide a bit, results are here:
 
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/e/2PACX-1vSY6cySWt81srZWN_GWl4LMCFSJOw4dYeO-Tlx8Fj_50P5oc0IgzGXFGrZzT3t_cktR9pjDVfNfqmLh/pub?start=false&loop=false&delayms=3000#slide=id.g5ee5921594_0_6
or 
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1jKiPIrbIH6RdJE15nYWA-xr1DDVuYAeurpfhu6Dug-c/edit#slide=id.g5ee5921594_0_6

Contents of the slide:

<slide>
Design Intentions

The AB resolved to address the continuous development on an accelerated basis;
W3C Process Community Group has explored several approaches:

* Creating an experimental new Process for spec development
   (Alternative Track)
   -> Can radically change the Process in all aspects
   -> Avoids altering the REC track
* Improving the W3C Recommendation Track Process directly
   -> Recommendation Track has problems, so let’s fix them!
   -> Incremental improvements as a set of ideas that could be
      adopted individually or together.
   -> Building on existing Process avoids undiscovered pitfalls
      of a brand new process track.
   -> Avoid confusing community with a different, parallel track

Note: Fixing the W3C Recommendation track while experimenting with a simple 
continuous process are not in opposition

</slide>

Discussing both options seems to make the Evergreen track proposal fit a 
little better into the presentation... Lmk if you have further comments.

> I still don’t understand why getting a Contribution License from WG members fixes anything in the W3C context, where WG members grant a full-spec. license.

It grants some protection for early implementations, and it gives us parity 
with WHATWG and W3C CGs, which both use them prior to full-spec licensing 
taking effect.

Note, the fact that this was part of the WHATWG policy seems to be the main 
reason why PSIG included it in their Evergreen Patent Policy draft.

> Then we get to the “Additional alternate track?” slides, which says “We are not supporting”.  I have no idea who “we” is. It also implies it’s dead (“originally tried”).

That slide was added at the request of Jeff, we've now modified the wording to 
be less judgemental. :)

~fantasai

Received on Monday, 9 September 2019 06:36:27 UTC