W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > August 2013

Re: The Chapter 7 requirements for issuing a document

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 17:59:57 -0700
Cc: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <72B6B885-9826-4A9B-B062-A599CDBE6BF5@apple.com>
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Neat, neat work.  Thank you!

On Jul 21, 2013, at 22:57 , Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote:

> Charles,
> General comment: your explanations below make sense and I agree with most of your assertions. More specific comments are inline below.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru] 
> Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 12:31 PM
> To: public-w3process@w3.org; Stephen Zilles
> Subject: Re: The Chapter 7 requirements for issuing a document 
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 21:36:01 -0700, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
> wrote:
>> I went thru the listed "requirements" (some are SHOULDs) for advancing 
>> documents along the Chapter 7 "REC track". I have attached an Excel 
>> spreadsheet which has the various requirements as rows and the various 
>> kinds of documents as columns. (Except there is an extra column which 
>> is the General Requirements for Advancement on the Recommendation Track.
> Thanks for doing this.
>> Based on this document I make the following observations.
>> 1.       I am not at all sure that it is worthwhile having General  
>> Requirements for Advancement (section 7.2) There seem to be too many 
>> special cases to make it worthwhile. Looking across the table, there 
>> seem to be exceptions to every single "General Requirement". If that 
>> is that case, then why have them.
> Actually, I see no exceptions or changes for Must record decision to publish, should document editorial changes, must document substantive changes (there are *additional* requirements on those that come after LCCR but they are not exceptions), must formally address comments, must document formal objections.
> In addition, it seems to me that "should document known implementation"  
> makes sense all the way through the process, so is a candidate to become a general requirement.
> which would make 6 requirements that carry through (a new one plus 5 of the current 7 in my editor's draft, where I dropped two of the should requirements in line with issue 37), with the other 2 going from should to must at LCCR, and therefore canidates for dropping from the general transition requirements.
> SZ: I am OK with you six general requirements as long as they are not repeated in the specific sections (especially with slight variations).

Totally agree.  I'd rather see the general requirements fatter, and the exceptions rarer, and no re-statements.  It would make life much easier.  Perhaps the only 'exception' is maybe we could be more relaxed about heartbeats (e.g. some MUSTs could be SHOULDs) but in general, I think once you're on REC track, you should maintain the document and decision process to the appropriate level of quality no matter where on the track you are.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2013 01:00:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:14 UTC