Re: Comments on: W3C Process2015

I have no problem with clarifying that wide review includes specifically horizontal review.  Maybe best to say that in one place, where we define wide review, to avoid the impression that sometimes horizontal review isn’t wanted (which is never the case)?

but this is editorial


> On Apr 6, 2015, at 9:43 , chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
> 
> I support both Addison's proposed edits.
>  
> I also note that w should at least include internationalisation in the list of horizontal review groups in the Guide.
>  
> And while reviewing FPWDs is indeed painful and hard, I think it is actually about the latest point that a first real review should take place.
>  
> I also note that the Process document requests that there is a new Working Draft whenever there are "changes that would benefit from external review" - I suggest we mention horizontal review groups there too. I note that in practice there is a push in some places to make new Working Drafts every time any change is made to the document, and I would like to know how the various horizontal review groups feel about that.
>  
> cheers
>  
> Chaals
>  
> 06.04.2015, 18:39, "Stephen Zilles" <szilles@adobe.com>:
>> Comments inline below
>> 
>> Steve Zilles
>> 
>>  
>> From: Phillips, Addison [mailto:addison@lab126.com] 
>> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 10:17 AM
>> To: public-w3process@w3.org
>> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org
>> Subject: Comments on: W3C Process2015
>> 
>>  
>> Dear Process folks,
>> 
>>  
>> I have the following comments on the proposed 2015 Process document. Please note that we discussed aspects of the process in the I18N WG on several occasions recently, but not the specifics of my comments presented here: these comments are mine.
>> 
>>  
>> Section 7.1.2, Candidate Recommendation (CR):
>> 
>>  
>> As I noted previously on the chairs list, because the circa 2014 process does not require a Last Call, it is entirely possible that Internationalization might never hear about a document or have the opportunity to formally review it until it is passing the CR threshold. While we have switched our process to tracking every FPWD, this is a tedious process and requires the working group (and mainly the chair) to evaluate every FPWD document. The process is, in other words, not helping us do a good job. This may apply to other “horizontal groups” also. Richard and I have inserted comments into [1], but would suggest some text in the process document also:
>> 
>>  
>> Alter the sentence: “A Candidate Recommendation is a document that satisfies the Working Group's technical requirements, and has already received wide review.”
>> 
>>  
>> To read:
>> 
>>  
>> “A Candidate Recommendation is a document that satisfies the Working Group's technical requirements, has already received wide review, and has been reviewed by W3C’s horizontal groups.”
>> 
>> [SZ] What you are asking for already exists within Process 2014, but it may not be as obvious as you would like. The drafters of Process 2014 were and continue to be concerned about facilitating Horizontal Reviews. In that context several things have been done. The first is that dependencies between a Working Group and various Horizontal Groups MUST be identified in that Working Group’s Charter.
>> 
>> 6.2.6 Working Group and Interest Group Charters
>> 
>> A Working Group or Interest Group charter must include all of the following information.
>> 
>> […]
>> 
>>  •            Any dependencies by groups within or outside of W3C on the deliverables of this group. For any dependencies, the charter must specify the mechanisms for communication about the deliverables;
>>  • Any dependencies of this group on other groups within or outside of W3C. For example, one group's charter might specify that another group is expected to review a technical report before it can become a Recommendation. For any dependencies, the charter must specify when required deliverables are expected from the other groups
>> Then, as you note below, there is the text in Section 7.2.3.1, Wide Review
>> 
>> […]
>> 
>> Before approving transitions, the Director will consider who has been explicitly offered a reasonable opportunity to review the document, who has provided comments, the record of requests to and responses from reviewers, especially groups identified as dependencies in the charter…
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> These, in combination, are intended to address Horizontal dependencies as well as other dependencies without limitation. And, they are intended to put the emphasis on making the connection between the Working Group and the Horizontal Groups be at the earliest useful stage, Charter creation.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> During the processing of comments on the then proposed Process 2014, it was recognized that the Team had a role to play in getting the Charters to identify all relevant dependencies so the following section was added to the The Art of Consensus (the W3C Guidebook http://www.w3.org/Guide/ ):
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 3.5 Horizontal Review (http://www.w3.org/Guide/Charter.html#horizontal-review )
>> 
>> Identification of horizontal dependencies should follow guidance under Section 6.2.6, 6th bullet, of the W3C Process.
>> 
>> There are key characteristics that are typically required (in different measure) of all specifications and they are therefore called “horizontal” characteristics. As of today, the identified horizontal characteristics are: accessibility, internationalization, mobility, device independence, privacy, security, and technical architecture principles. For each of these characteristics, W3M will designate which team members have expertise to help all team contacts ensure the characteristics are achieved.
>> 
>> During the charter creation process, the Team Contact needs to involve at least one expert for each horizontal characteristic to ensure that the Charter adequately describes any dependencies it might have relative to horizontal characteristics. This should be a lightweight involvement – such as an email with a draft charter with a request for comment. Ideally, this involvement should start early in Charter development to avoid undue delays. Team Contacts should negotiate the timing of reviews early in the chartering process.
>> 
>> W3M must ensure that there are sufficient experts on staff so that it generally does not take more than two weeks to get a response, although in most cases it is beneficial for the experts to have more time to provide input.
>> 
>> Different Working Groups are chartered with different levels of specificity: some groups are accompanied by a draft list of requirements or a draft spec. However, it is not the purpose of the chartering activity to review these drafts for horizontal characteristics – ultimately that is achieved through the normal W3C Process. So in all cases, the purpose here is to ensure that dependencies are identified; but there is no thorough review of the spec.
>> 
>> Some of the key groups where there could be dependencies include:
>> 
>>  • WAI Protocols and Formats Working Group (for accessibility)
>>  • Security Interest Group (for security)
>>  • Privacy Interest Group (for privacy)
>>  • Technical Architecture Group (for technical architecture principles)
>> When the Charter is brought to W3M, the Team Contact should state which horizontal experts approved that the dependencies were appropriately documented based on the current understanding of the work. If when the Team Contact engaged experts there were insufficient experts available for timely review, then the Team Contact can move ahead with the charter nevertheless, and should report this to W3M. W3M will monitor whether particular horizontal activities are insufficiently resourced, leading to regular delays on charter reviews.
>> 
>> It may take a while until all the charters are updated with appropriate dependencies, but when these exist, the main concern you expressed, getting to CR without appropriate horizontal reviews, should not be possible. In addition, section 6.2.6 places the requirement on the Working Group to satisfy the dependency rather than on the Horizontal Group to find things they need to review, not that that isn’t a good idea, at least as a sanity check.
>> 
>> I hope this discussion of Process 2014 and the W3C Guide shows our intent to meet your needs. In addition, there is an Issue, Issue-127 http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/127 , that is concerned with whether further improvements are needed.
>> 
>> Please let me know if what is outlined above meets your needs or if you think something more is needed.
>> 
>> Steve Zilles
>> 
>> Chair, Process Document Task Force
>> 
>>  
>> Section 7.2.3.1, Wide Review
>> 
>>  
>> As above, a mention of the horizontal groups might be desirable here. Perhaps they should be explicitly cited as evidence of wide review? Perhaps add a mention of the horizontal groups, such as Internationalization, to this sentence:
>> 
>>  
>> “Before approving transitions, the Director will consider who has been explicitly offered a reasonable opportunity to review the document, who has provided comments, the record of requests to and responses from reviewers, especially groups identified as dependencies in the charter or identified as liaisons [PUB29], and seek evidence of clear communication to the general public about appropriate times and which content to review and whether such reviews actually occurred.”
>> 
>>  
>> For example:
>> 
>>  
>> “Before approving transitions, the Director will consider who has been explicitly offered a reasonable opportunity to review the document, who has provided comments, the record of requests to and responses from reviewers, especially groups identified as dependencies in the charter and identified as liaisons [PUB29] as well as W3C’s horizontal groups [define them], and seek evidence of clear communication to the general public about appropriate times and which content to review and whether such reviews actually occurred.”
>> 
>>  
>> Thanks,
>> 
>>  
>> Addison
>> 
>>  
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/DocumentReview
>> 
>>  
>> Addison Phillips
>> 
>> Chair (W3C I18N WG)
>> 
>>  
>> Internationalization is not a feature.
>> 
>> It is an architecture.
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: Stephen Zilles [mailto:szilles@adobe.com] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:04 AM
>> To: w3c-ac-members; Chairs
>> Cc: ab; public-w3process
>> Subject: Close of Initial Review Period, W3C Process2015
>> 
>>  
>> On March 6th, you were asked [1] to review the current draft of Process2015 [2] and respond by 31 March. That Review officially closes today, but comments received by the end of this week will be considered.
>> 
>>  
>> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2015JanMar/0044.html
>> 
>> [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/68f2be460152/cover.html<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html>
>> 
>>  
>> Comments should be sent to public-w3process@w3.org
>> 
>> <mailto:public-w3process@w3.org> and may be copied to any list you think
>> 
>> relevant to the comment. There is a diff document showing changes from Process2014 at:
>> 
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/att-0024/DiffProcess2015.html
>> 
>>  
>> A number of comments have been received to date. Some of the key comments are at:
>> 
>>  
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2015JanMar/0088.html
>> 
>> begins a discussion of restructuring and/or re-examing the TAG both in terms of its structure and scope of work. Also useful is
>> 
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2015JanMar/0101.html
>> 
>>  
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/0023.html
>> 
>> has a number of editorial comments and introduces (Comment 9) the topic of fixing up “bugs” in the Appeal process. The Process Document Task Force has viewed this as too big a topic to do piecemeal and proposes this be a discussion topic for Process 2016.
>> 
>>  
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/0068.html
>> 
>> raises two issues: (1) whether the Chair of the AB or TAG can ask a member to resign without having a cause for that request and (2) whether there is an inconsistency between sections 2.5.3 and 3.4 on requirements for voting rules in charters.
>> 
>>  
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/0063.html
>> 
>> expands on a discussion of rules for Charter Extensions.
>> 
>>  
>> There is also one open issue, Issue-152, which has a note in the Document [2 above]
>> 
>> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/152
>> 
>>  
>> Steve Zilles
>> 
>> Chair, Process Document Task Force
>> 
>  
>  
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
>  

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Monday, 6 April 2015 16:47:08 UTC