RE: formatting fixed: an alternative to the current REC process

>Would you please clarify if this is Intel's proposal (or something else)?

Personal proposal.  (but only because I'd just written it up and didn't want to go through the delay of asking).  This proposal is made up of various ideas that have been proposed by various people during the course of these many discussions.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:18 AM
>To: Carr, Wayne
>Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
>Subject: Re: formatting fixed: an alternative to the current REC process
>
>Interesting Wayne.
>
>Would you please clarify if this is Intel's proposal (or something else)?
>
>-Thanks, ArtB
>
>On 3/20/12 7:57 PM, ext Carr, Wayne wrote:
>> – formatting problems – sending this as text
>>
>> an alternative to the current REC process
>>
>> * Publish Editor’s Drafts on TR page as WG Draft.  Provide source control on
>editor’s draft so can grab it at any date.
>>
>> * Sections of draft are marked as: 1) proposal; 2) developing; 3) Last Call
>Review; 4) Stable (completed Last Call without substantive change);  5)
>Experimental.  Any substantive change to a stable section returns it to proposal or
>developing or Last Call Review.  Experimental is an alternative to Stable with no
>guarantee they will not be changed or removed in future versions.
>>
>> * Stages: WG drafts (previously called Editor’s draft).  Can continue to produce
>these while a version of the draft is frozen during review stages.
>>
>> * Stages: Last Call Review.  Applies to all sections marked as Last Call Review.  If
>no changes, section is marked as Stable (or Experimental if not in Stable track).
>>
>> * Stages: Candidate REC.  Entry requires all Last Call comments handled and at
>least 2 implementations of every stable feature.   No proposed or developing
>features.  (test suites not needed to enter CR).  Advisory Committee “vote” and
>Director approval to become a CR.
>>
>> * Stages: REC.  No AC “vote” unless an AC rep challenges the test suite.
>Otherwise, Director decides if test suite is sufficient.
>>
>> * Patent Policy: keep disclosure rules as is
>>
>> * Patent Policy: adopt Community Group contribution rules for patents for
>contributor at contribution time (and with later use in follow up spec versions).
>>
>> * Patent Policy: drop Call for Exclusions at first draft (it’s too early and the draft
>can be unrelated to final spec and it wastes lawyers time).
>>
>> * Patent Policy: Last Call reviews on sections marked as Last Call Review.  Call
>for Exclusions for these sections.  Snapshot preserved of the Last Call Review
>versions.  Any change to a Stable section that could change essential claims
>returns that section to “developing” and requires another review.  Can have as
>many Last Call reviews as desired.  (Continue to have WG Drafts during and after
>a Last Call review).
>>
>> * Patent Policy: Patent related obligations for WG Members (other than
>Contributor) begin at Candidate REC.   Patent Policy applies only to Normative,
>Stable sections, not Experimental sections.
>> Community Groups:  WGs could choose to do their technical work in a CG.
>Snapshot taken for LC reviews and for CR and REC.  Snapshots for CR and REC
>have no “proposal” or “developing” sections
>>

Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 21:13:20 UTC