[Bug 12776] Define process for deciding whether a draft is REC-track or Note-track

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12776

--- Comment #13 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> 2011-06-20 06:25:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)

> So the W3C process does not provide for this group nor any other group to
> decide "whether a draft is REC-track or Note-track". If the HTML WG decides to
> publish a draft as a Note, then as far as the Process doc defines it, that
> means the group is deciding to end work on that draft.
> 
> What the W3C publication policy does instead provide for is making it clear
> within the draft itself that it is an informative-only draft (if that's what
> the group agrees it is to be). So the right thing to be discussing and getting
> resolved here is an HTML WG policy for the group to decide whether a particular
> draft is informative-only or not.

Informative vs normative and REC vs Note are orthogonal dimensions. The WG
certainly has a right to decide that a Working Draft will not advance to
Candidate Recommendation or beyond, but will instead eventually become a
Working Group Note. It is also common for a Working Group to decide this up
front. This is a WG Decision and not within an Editor's discretion.

It is certainly up to Editors (initially) and the Working Group (ultimately)
whether a draft will include normative requirements. But it is also up to the
Working Group whether a draft will proceed to Candidate Rec and beyond. It
seems much better to decide this up front, in an orderly manner, than to go all
the way to the point of being ready to go to CR and then having the CR
resolution fail.

That is what this bug is about.

I agree with you that no special policy is needed to decide whether a draft
should include normative requirements or be merely informative. That seems to
be handled fine by the normal Decision Policy.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 06:25:28 UTC