process going forward

Hello to the group:

Someone this morning asked me when the email would go out about process
going forward.

To make sure everyone is on the same page, here is the email that went out
last night that represents the chairs' and W3C's process in this next
stage.  Nick is very helpfully working to maintain transparency on the
website and the mailing list.  Matthias and I as co-chairs are fortunate
to be getting a bunch of help from Nick and others with W3C during this
next period, including (alphabetically) Yianni Lagos, Thomas Roessler,
Bill Scannell, Wendy Seltzer, and Rigo Wenning.

Thank you,

Peter




Prof. Peter P. Swire
C. William O'Neill Professor of Law
	Ohio State University
240.994.4142
www.peterswire.net

Beginning August 2013:
Nancy J. and Lawrence P. Huang Professor
Law and Ethics Program
Scheller College of Business
Georgia Institute of Technology






-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:45 PM
To: "public-tracking@w3.org Mailing List" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: logistics for gathering and processing proposals
Resent-From: <public-tracking-announce@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:45 PM

>The chairs have asked for text proposals that differ from the June draft
>on Compliance by noon Eastern time on Wednesday, June 26th. If you have
>such alternate proposals, please:
>  1) send those text proposals to the public-tracking mailing list,
>  2) note in the subject that this is a "change proposal" and
>  3) if your proposal draws on an existing issue, identify that existing
>issue by number ("issue-1", say)
>
>W3C staff (primarily Nick) will manage these text proposals, collect
>friendly amendments, and consolidate options where appropriate. A wiki
>page for each proposal (or set of proposals, as appropriate) will be
>maintained with any such updates, and each proposal will be associated
>with an issue on the June Compliance product. As appropriate, we will
>create new issues to track proposals or move existing issues to the June
>Compliance product, and each issue will have links to any related
>proposal pages. The chairs will triage these issues and propose a
>prioritization to the group.
>
>Based on that prioritization, issues will be discussed -- all on the
>mailing list, and some on telephone conferences.  During this discussion
>phase, change proposals can be refined, and counter-proposals (which
>might include proposals to retain the current text in the June draft) can
>be made.  If, at the end of this discussion phase, a change proposal is
>unopposed (consensus has been achieved), the chairs will instruct the
>editors to apply the change proposal.  If there are competing proposals
>with support, these proposals will be the topic of a call for objections.
>
>For each issue on the June Compliance product for which there are
>competing proposals and we do not have consensus, the chairs will issue a
>Call for Objections. W3C staff will manage the creation of a
>questionnaire which enumerates the proposals and asks for objections.
>Calls for Objections will be sent to the public-tracking and
>public-tracking-announce mailing lists, and include "[Call for
>Objections]" in the subject of the message. Each questionnaire will have
>a set deadline for gathering objections. (In order to move promptly, we
>may run questionnaires in parallel.)
>
>As the editors have indicated their support and we have seen support from
>the group in working off of the shorter June draft, we will move the June
>draft to be the new editors' draft. Because this change is significant,
>we will ensure a link remains to the last published Working Draft (the
>May WD matches the April 29 editors' draft).
>
>For friendly or editorial amendments, we'll ask the editors to implement
>those changes directly. Those changes will go automatically to the
>public-tracking-commit mailing list, but we will also provide summary
>emails of those changes to the public-tracking mailing list at regular
>intervals. If the editors have made a clarifying change but you find the
>change to actually be substantive and controversial, let the editors know
>and we can back out that change and instead add that text as a change
>proposal to the June draft.
>
>čNick

Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 12:31:41 UTC