- From: Maciej Stachowiak via cvs-syncmail <cvsmail@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 21:28:34 +0000
- To: public-html-commits@w3.org
Update of /sources/public/html5/decision-policy In directory hutz:/tmp/cvs-serv20678 Modified Files: decision-policy-v2.html Log Message: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12029 Define a process for "particularly exceptional circumstances" Index: decision-policy-v2.html =================================================================== RCS file: /sources/public/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html,v retrieving revision 1.27 retrieving revision 1.28 diff -u -d -r1.27 -r1.28 --- decision-policy-v2.html 30 May 2011 21:08:51 -0000 1.27 +++ decision-policy-v2.html 30 May 2011 21:28:32 -0000 1.28 @@ -804,6 +804,35 @@ to let the Chairs know, ideally via a post to the public list. The Chairs will make the call.</p> +<h3>New Features</h3> + +<p>Furthermore, as we move through W3C maturity levels, the process requires gradually locking +down the spec. In particular:</p> + +<ul +<li>If substantial technical changes are made after a Last Call Working Draft, +then the Working Group cannot proceed to Candidate Recommendation and must +publish another LCWD. While it is not entirely clear what kinds of changes are +substantial enough, it seems like feature additions, or for that matter feature +removals, probably are.</li> + +<li>During Candidate Recommendation, if anything beyond very minor technical +changes are made, other than dropping features marked "at risk", then the WG +cannot proceed to Proposed Recommendation and must return to Working Draft +status.</li> + +<p>Given these rules, it seems wise to be careful about anything that is even +arguably a feature addition - even arguably ambiguous cases such as documenting +longstanding de facto standard features.</p> + +<p>Therefore during the current pre-LC period, and during Last Call, +feature additions or removals should only be done with sufficient +prior notice to the group, in the form of a bug, a WG decision, or an +on-list discussion. This applies only to LC-track drafts and does not +apply to drafts that may include material for future versions of +HTML.</p> + + <h3>What kind of changes might this revert policy apply to?</h3> <ul> @@ -831,10 +860,13 @@ normal process.</li> <li>It is also reasonably likely that this process could be used to -object to new features. The Chairs recommend in general that new -features should not be added after the cutoff, except in particularly -exceptional circumstances. -<!-- FIXME: this text needs to be expandedand clarified to cover http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12029 and http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12734 --> +object to new features. In general, new features should not be added +to an LC-track draft after the cutoff. If this must be done, it is +highly recommended that prior notice be given to the WG, ideally via a +bug report or alternately via an on-list discussion or a WG +Decision. The Chairs will be very likely to grant revert requests for +new features where there was not due prior notice. +<!-- FIXME: this text needs to be expanded and clarified to cover http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12734 --> </li> <li>Most likely, this process will be used for the types of changes
Received on Monday, 30 May 2011 21:28:36 UTC