W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > May 2011

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

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 21:39:59 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QRABr-0004i3-Qc@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12776

--- Comment #1 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> 2011-05-30 21:39:58 UTC ---
To flesh this out a little more, I propose the following process:

1) Initial choice of whether a draft is REC-track or Note-track is up to the
Editor or Editors of that draft. Ideally each Editor should make his intent
clear.

2) If any WG member would like to move a draft from REC-track to Note-track or
vice versa, they should file a bug as an initial step.

3) If the editor agrees, and no one objects, the matter is settled.

4) If anyone objects, they should escalate to a tracker issue, which  will be
resolved by a special fast-track process.

5) The fast-track process is as follows:

    5.a) We do not ask for full Change Proposals, merely for a rationale
statement from advocates of both REC-track and Note-track. These can be brief.
They can quote existing bug comments. The timeline to deliver is a month.

    5.b) If neither side provides rationale, the issue is closed without
prejudice and can be reopened if someone does provide rationale.

    5.c) If only one side provides rationale, we hold a CfC to close the issue
without prejudice. It can be reopened if rationale is provided later and the
relevant draft has not yet gone to CR.

    5.d) If both sides provide rationale, we hold a survey. Since this is a
process, not a technical decision, the survey is by individual not
organization, and subject to quorum requirements, majority wins. If we do not
achieve quorum, the Chairs will decide whether to re-run the survey or table
the issue.

-- 
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 Monday, 30 May 2011 21:40:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:10 UTC