Re: New proposal for transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-20]

On 12/2/2013 10:35 AM, fantasai wrote:
> On 12/02/2013 06:39 AM, Ralph Swick wrote:
>> Considering the input on issue-39 [1,2] to-date, I offer the following
>> revised proposal:
>> Re: ISSUE-39: Managing the transition to a new TR cycle
>> Should the W3C Advisory Committee approve a new Technical Report
>> Development Process the Director will need to state the manner and
>> schedule for deployment of the revised Process.
>> As of the Director's announcement of the approval of a new Technical
>> Report Development Process:
>> 1. All Technical Reports published after the adoption of a revised
>>     TR Development Process will state whether they were developed
>>     under the 2005 Process or under the new [2014] Process.
> I'm not sure this should be required for REC documents, which should
> have already fulfilled requirements made in either process.

I agree; that makes sense.  Once a specification is a Recommendation it
it no longer serves a purpose to state in the document which Process was
followed to get it here.

> Also I would like to phase out this requirement somehow. It's going
> to be not-particularly-useful boilerplate 5 years from now. So I'm
> only OK with this if we have a phase-out plan.

I support this as well.  I hope your guesstimate of 5 years to have no
more documents on the 2005 Process is generous.  But certainly once we
no longer have any documents on the 2005 Process we should be able to
abbreviate the boilerplate (or whatever form the document metadata takes
by that time.)

>> 3. Any Working Group with Recommendation Track documents published
>>     as Last Call Working Drafts under the 2005 Process will continue
>>     to follow the 2005 Process for those documents.
> Until they get to another jump point, right? :)

I wondered if you'd ask that :)  When a document reaches CR[2005] it can
then be republished as CR[2014] per rule 4.

> Overall, looks good. I approve.
> ~fantasai

Received on Monday, 2 December 2013 16:17:17 UTC