W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > January 2007

Candidate Recommendation schedule and exit criteria

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:11:38 -0800
To: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A88DAD583CC6234FA50D78503892FFDF02C86DA5@NA-EXMSG-C103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

>Candidate Recommendation schedule and exit criteria

The current F2F agenda contains the above agenda item.  When we discuss this today I would suggest we cover the following sub-topics:

a) W3C Process 7.2 General Requirements for Advancement on the Recommendation Track
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#transition-reqs

"In preparation for advancement to Candidate Recommendation or subsequent maturity levels up to and including publication as a Recommendation, the Working Group MUST:

 1.  Record the group's decision to request advancement.
 2.  Provide public documentation of all changes (both substantive and minor) to the technical report since the previous step. A substantive change (whether deletion, inclusion, or other modification) is one where someone could reasonably expect that making the change would invalidate an individual's review or implementation experience. Other changes (e.g., clarifications, bug fixes, editorial repairs, and minor error corrections) are minor changes.
 3.  Report which, if any, of the Working Group's requirements for this document have changed since the previous step.
 4.  Report any changes in dependencies with other groups.
 5.  Show evidence of wide review.
 6.  Formally address<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address> all issues raised about the document since the previous step.
 7.  Report any Formal Objections<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#FormalObjection>.

The following information is important to the decision to advance a technical report and therefore MUST be publicly available<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/comm.html#confidentiality-change>:

 *   Documentation of all changes to the technical report (e.g., by providing "diffs" in addition to summaries of substantive changes<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#substantive-change>);
 *   A statement that all requirements have been fulfilled or a listing of unfulfilled requirements and the rationale for advancing the document though some requirements have not been met.
 *   Evidence of wide review and that dependencies with other groups have been resolved;
 *   All responses that formally address issues<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address> raised by reviewers;
 *   All Formal Objections<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#FormalObjection>.

Refer to "How to Organize a Recommendation Track Transition"<http://www.w3.org/2003/05/Transitions> in the Member guide<http://www.w3.org/Guide/> for practical guidance on satisfying these requirements."

b) W3C Process 7.4.3 Call for Implementations (aka Candidate Recommendation)
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi

Document maturity level: Candidate Recommendation<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#RecsCR>.



Announcement: The Director MUST announce the Call for Implementations to the Advisory Committee<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC>.



Purpose: At this step, W3C believes the technical report is stable and appropriate for implementation. The technical report MAY still change based on implementation experience.



Entrance criteria: The Director calls for implementation when satisfied that the Working Group has fulfilled the general requirements for advancement<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#transition-reqs>.



The Working Group is NOT REQUIRED to show that a technical report has two independent and interoperable implementations as part of a request to the Director to announce a Call for Implementations. However, the Working Group SHOULD include a report of present and expected implementations as part of the request.



In the Call for Implementations, the Working Group MAY identify specific features of the technical report as being "features at risk." General statements such as "We plan to remove any unimplemented feature" are not acceptable; the Working Group MUST precisely identify any features at risk. Thus, in response to a Call for Implementations, reviewers can indicate whether they would register a Formal Objection<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#FormalObjection> to the decision to remove the identified features.



After gathering implementation experience, the Working Group MAY remove features from the technical report that were identified as being "at risk" and request that the Director Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr>. If the Working Group makes other substantive changes<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#substantive-change> to the technical report, the Director MUST return it to the Working Group for further work<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#return-to-wg>.



The request to the Director to advance a technical report to Candidate Recommendation MUST indicate whether the Working Group expects to satisfy any Proposed Recommendation entrance criteria beyond the default requirements (described below).



Advisory Committee representatives MAY appeal<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/acreview.html#ACAppeal> the decision to advance the technical report.



Duration of the implementation period: The announcement MUST indicate a minimal duration, before which the Working Group MUST NOT request a Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr>; this minimal duration is designed to allow time for comment. The announcement SHOULD also include the Working Group's estimate of the time expected to gather sufficient implementation data.

c) WS-Policy Interop Scenarios and Workshop Results

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Jun/0010.html

Status: When the WG started IBM and Microsoft contributed interop scenarios which I recommend we build on for our CR testing.



d) WS-Policy Interop testing scenarios, Asir

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0143.html and

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/att-0143/ws-policy-features-01-15-2006.pdf

Status:  This email provides a "feature analysis" of the Framework and Attachment specifications and identifies needed work.



e) Draft schedule

Status: We need to discuss a candidate schedule for exiting Last Call, entering CR and doing our interop testing.



1)   IBM and MS contributes the updated scenarios pack

2)  Close Last Call issues

3)  Co-chairs establish a plan to complete the remaining scenarios work

4)  Editors deliver CR drafts for publication

5)  WG members review of candidate CR drafts

6) Chairs prepare disposition of comments and other LC evidence

7) Co-chairs' CR conference call with the Director and other W3C staff

8)  Editors deliver Scenarios for publication

9)  Remaining scenarios are due

10)  Director's decision and CFI announcement

11)  CR publication, WG publishes the First Public Working Draft of Scenarios

12)  Editors deliver updated Scenarios for publication

13)  WG publishes the Second Public Working Draft of Scenarios

14)  Mar 13-15 - WG F2F meeting in SFO, co-chairs invite implementers to attend

 f) Any other items



/paulc


Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329
mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com
Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2007 20:11:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:45 GMT