W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > September 2016

Re: About WG process Re: the role of public-rdf-shapes@w3.org

From: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:18:40 -0700
Cc: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org, Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>, "Wendy Seltzer, Domain Lead" <wseltzer@w3.org>
Message-Id: <61296821-3696-4922-BC96-A227883DC7E7@syapse.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Yes - my process knowledge is out of date:
This was changed in 2014

I read:
Last Call and Candidate Recommendation have been collapsed together. Some of the requirements are therefore enforced earlier in the process.

New requirements that Working groups should document known implementation and must document expected next steps for all publications

which seems to replace at least some of the function of Last Call.

Given that this new requirements is not met in
https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-20160814/#sotd <https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-20160814/#sotd>

I will raise a formal comment


> On Sep 28, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do note that it appears that there is no longer any official "last call"
> stage in the W3C process.  It thus appears that all comments received on any
> working draft have to be formally addressed before advancement to candidate
> recommendation maturity level.  In effect, there is no longer a "reset" on
> comments at Last Call (assuming that there ever was).
> I have copied the domain lead of the Technology and Society Domain, which
> appears to be the W3C domain of the RDF Data Shapes Working Group, for further
> guidance on this point.
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
> On 09/28/2016 09:59 AM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
>> I have been following Peter’s comments with some interest …
>> I wondered about this comment:
>> On Sep 28, 2016, at 6:12 AM, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com
>> <mailto:lehors@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
>>> Technically speaking, the process doesn't require us to formally dispose of the comments we receive at this stage on the Recommendation track but it's to everybody's benefit to try and address them earlier rather than later.
>> I see that 
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-20160814/
>> is governed by the 1 September 2015 W3C Process Document
>> <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/>.
>> and in the process document I read
>> https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#transition-reqs
>> For /all/ requests to advance a specification to a new maturity level 
>>  * /must/ formally address
>>    <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#formal-address> all issues
>>    raised about the document since the previous maturity level.
>> where formally address is:
>> https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#formal-address
>> a group has formally addressed an issue when it has sent a public, substantive
>> response to the reviewer who raised the issue. A substantive response is
>> expected to include rationale for decisions (e.g., a technical explanation, a
>> pointer to charter scope, or a pointer to a requirements document). 
>> Having worked with Peter commenting on documents which I have edited, I
>> appreciate his desire to receive such a response. It is very much easier to
>> work with a commentator who works within the process. 
>> It appears that on several issues that have been raised he has not received a
>> substantive response, and the WG thus needs to track those issues, so that
>> before advancing from Last Call to Candidate Rec, all these issues can be
>> addressed.
>> Conventionally WGs use issue lists for this purpose, and close an issue in a
>> way which keeps a link to the substantive response.
>> Of course you are free to use a back-of-an-envelope for the real status
>> according to the process doc, and to close issues on the issue list when they
>> have not been formally addressed. However, if you do so, and lose that
>> envelope, then Peter, and others, will be able to invoke 6.2.2 to prevent your
>> advancement past last call.
>> Really this is your call, you are quite right to say:
>> " the process doesn't require us to formally dispose of the comments we
>> receive at this stage “
>> but I fear that if you insist on sloppy process at this stage that it will
>> come back to bite you, and I for one, believe that WGs should get into
>> the habit of keeping good records of formally addressing comments before Last
>> Call, which you articulate as “it's to everybody's benefit”
>> In particular, on ISSUE-107, "The WG acknowledged your point but decided to
>> leave the spec as is.” is not a substantive response. It will be very rude of
>> you, if at Last Call, Peter points out that you have not given a substantive
>> response, and then receives one which is “Yes one method would be better than
>> two, but it is not essential, and now too late to improve things.”.
>> I have yet to review your documents, and hope to do so later in the process. I
>> will also be reviewing Peter’s comments at that time, particularly those where
>> he is disappointed with the working-group response: I would normally expect it
>> to be easy to find from the WG records, such comments, the
>> substantive responses, and Peter’s replies to those substantive responses.
>> Jeremy J Carroll
>> Senior Principal Architect
>> Syapse, Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2016 18:19:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:44 UTC