Re: Wrong information given at the WG Call yesterday

> On 25 Apr 2024, at 16:23, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 11:41 PM Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> The publication of a CR Snapshot does require an official transition request by the W3C management, akin to the initial transition from a Working Draft to CR.
> 
> Good to know that I'm not going insane (yet)...

Instead, I was the one going insane…

> 
> I remember CR2 transitions being historically painful from a
> documentation and horizontal review checking perspective.

Well, it can be. The question that the "horizontals" have to answer whether any change in the document raised possibly new issues or not.


> It's why
> I've been muscle-memory tagging everything w/ "CR1" and "editorial" or
> "normative" labels, so it's easy to review what sort of horizontal
> re-review we'd need as well as the disposition of comments for every
> issue.

Yes.

> I remember having to hand compile those over the years by going
> back through the commit history (when we worked in CVS and then
> Subversion) and the transition to Github making it slightly easier.

I hope it is not too late, but… I think the safest is to have a separate appendix section which lists all the changes that occurred since the last snapshot. Just one sentence for each. When it comes to horizontal re-review, they can just look at the list and, based on the description, they can make a quick judgement. Asking them to go through the issues is probably more difficult and may therefore take more time.

> 
> In any case, a reminder to the Chair and Staff that we need to be
> really careful about marking every issue and PR now with "CR1" and
> "editorial" or "normative" labels (I've been doing this since we
> entered CR1, but might have missed a few issues / PRs).

Indeed.

> 
> Doing so will help us figure out if we need to ping test suite
> authors, implementers, and/or the horizontal review groups again. It
> will also help us write the disposition of comments into the changelog
> during the CR transition request.
> 
>> However, the load is somewhat lower. There is a section in the process document on "Streamlined Publication Request"
>> 
>> https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20231103/#streamlined-update
> 
> Hmm, I don't think our "Horizontal Review Group has made available a
> set criteria under which their review is not necessary"

Right….


> ... we'll
> probably have to make a judgement call on normative changes that might
> require a re-review. Or, we might just ask every HR group for a
> re-review and point them to the changelog and PRs for them to make a
> determination if they need to re-review.

I would go for the second option. With some reasonable deadlines.

> 
> Also, I don't know what this requirement means:
> 
> "There must have been no changes to Working Group requirements about
> this document."
> 
> Does that mean "no normative changes to the specification"? If so, all
> of our specs will have suffered at least one normative change during
> CR1 (which is expected).

No, I believe this means that there was no fundamental change in the direction of the specification. Say, we decide that the VCDM model should be (also) expressed in XML… that would be a new requirement.

Ivan

> 
> -- manu
> 
> -- 
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43