[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 #9 from Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> 2011-06-01 13:20:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8 from Sam)
> Until or unless the following bugs are resolved, we still need a process for
> deciding whether a given document is REC-track or Note-track:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12725
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12726

There isn't actually any such thing as "Note-track". So the premise on which
both those bugs and this bug were raised is flawed.

The discussion and resolution of these bug needs to be based on what the W3C
Process document actually says, not what people assume it says or on what they
wish it said.

So, as far as what the W3C Process doc actually says: While it uses the term
"Recommendation track" extensively, it makes zero mention of a "Note track" or
anything like similar.

What the Process doc does instead is, it provides for a Note _state_, which it
defines as a specific _maturity level_ -- and that particular maturity level is
what Paul alluded to in his comment; it's used by a Working Group "to indicate
that work has ended on a particular topic".

Here's a full excerpt from the relevant part of the Process document:

7.1.3 Maturity Level When Ending Work on a Technical Report
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#q75
[[
Working Group Note
A Working Group Note is published by a chartered Working Group to indicate that
work has ended on a particular topic. A Working Group may publish a Working
Group Note with or without its prior publication as a Working Draft.
]]

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.

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

Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2011 13:20:35 UTC