- From: James Rosewell via WBS Mailer <sysbot+wbs@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 07:24:02 +0000
- To: public-new-work@w3.org
The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Call for Review: Proposed W3C Process Document; Proposed W3C Patent Policy' (Advisory Committee) for 51Degrees by James Rosewell. Regarding the "W3C Process Document" specification, the reviewer suggests changes, but supports adoption as the W3C Process whether or not the changes are adopted. Additional comments about the specification: Role of the Director The Process is very reliant on the Director (Tim Berners-Lee) to make decisions and the Director will eventually retire without a replacement. A lot of responsibility is therefore placed on a single individual and requires a lot of their time to be carried out thoroughly. The AB minutes from July [1] provide an update on work to address this as part of the “Director-free” future of the W3C. The Director-free Plan [2] shows current status. We would like to see this work accelerated so that all references to the Director can be removed from the Process in an update within the next four months. Need for Policy Chapter 10.4 “Rejection of a Submission Request, and Submission Appeals” of the draft [3] would benefit from referencing a policy concerning what constitutes a harm (or benefit) to the web. It is not reasonable for any person or group to make this decision without a reference point and does make it harder for proposers to pre-empt rejection reasons. Existing documents such as the Ethical Web Principles [4], or priority of constituents in HTML design principles [5] don’t represent a coherent policy and are open to interpretation. We observe the difficulties associated with horizontal review which will be improved with such a policy. IETF There is often overlap with IETF on technical standards. Modifying the process to specifically explain how the W3C process works with the IETF would help. As a new member of the W3C we are often confused over where a technical standard should be developed or discussed. Examples include; cookies, tracing or client hints. There seems to be no requirement for issues and comments raised or discussed within the W3C to be passed to the IETF for consideration. Whilst the IETF is the closest adjacent organization there are others that might similarly benefit from engagement in other fields. [1] https://www.w3.org/2020/07/21-ab-minutes.html [2] https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/Director-free_Plan [3] https://www.w3.org/2020/06/DRAFT-Process2020.html#SubmissionNo [4] https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/ [5] https://github.com/w3ctag/design-principles General comments: Perhaps the Team could produce a summarised version for new members and other stakeholders in the near future. Regarding the "W3C Patent Policy" specification, the reviewer supports adoption as the W3C Patent Policy as is. Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/PP-Process-2020/ until 2020-08-13. Regards, The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2020 07:24:04 UTC