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

Re: Comments on 6 December 2013 Chapter 7 draft

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:09:30 -0600
Cc: "Revising W3C Process Community Group" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-Id: <54BC94B5-7FE6-4AED-BCDE-3136F8C803DA@w3.org>
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>

On Dec 12, 2013, at 4:50 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 19:03:30 +0400, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote


> In future, please feel free to directly raise issues - it saves me a little bit of work…

Will do.

>> - 7.4.1.a First Public Working Draft
> Now 7.3.1
>>  The draft says: "The Director must announce the publication of a
>>  First Public Working Draft publication to other W3C groups and to
>>  the public." In practice we do not announce publications to other
>>  W3C groups other than via the home page (which is to the public).  I
>>  have also not heard requests for a second type of announcement to
>>  groups. Therefore, I propose to delete "to other W3C groups and"
> Raised issue 7. Note that I disagree, and would like to have mail sent at least to chairs@

I stand corrected. Our transitions document already says for FPWD:

 "In order to facilitate peer review, once the document has been published, the Chair sends a transition announcement to chairs@w3.org and the group's public mailing list."

Since it's in the transitions documentation, can we remove it from the process document?

Where is the URI to issue 7? I don't see it in the w3process tracker:

>> - 7.4.1.b Revised Public Working Drafts
> Now 7.3.2
>>  "If 6 months elapse without significant changes to a specification a
>>  Working Group should publish a revised Working Draft, whose status
>>  section should indicate reasons for the lack of change."
>>  If groups are finding it not worth their time to publish, asking
>>  them to publish may not have the desired effect. I propose instead
>>  that the WG SHOULD send a status update to the webmaster and request
>>  that the Webmaster update the most recent draft with the status
>>  update.
> As far as I know, there is only one way to publish a new draft - but if you allow groups to send some edit to the Webmaster and make him or her responsible for updating the draft, I don't think that changes anything we have done here.

> If groups have done nothing, unless they already set expectations that nothing would happen in describing next steps as per the issue above, they only need to agree to publish a new draft with revised expectations about next steps.
> I think we can remove the last clause of this requirement. But I think the rest of it should stay. And if publishing is really painful, we should fix that - it is a critical part of making W3C work, so just telling people not to publish seems counter-productive to me.

> I haven't raised an issue - if you disagree with me, please raise one.

Issue 79:

See notes in the tracker.

>> - 7.4.3 Publication of a W3C Recommendation
> Now 7.5
>>  I am not sure I have understood what is supposed to happen here.
>>  It seems like something happens between publication of a CR
>>  and publication of a Recommendation.
>>  First, there is no rationale to explain why there is an event
>>  between publication of CR and publication of a REC.
> Raised issue 77.
> This is part of the de-emphasis of Proposed Rec as a formal stage, and it really does need some more explanation. My assumption is that there is a director's call, in general, but not necessarily a new publication. There must be an announcement to the AC that there is a deadline for their review…

I thought that the AC review was going to happen at the (new) CR transition. Why is there a need for a second AC review?

>>  Second, if the event involves a publication, it is not clear
>>  to me what the label on the document would be.
> Right.
>>  Finally, I think the mixing of PER and "for all Recommendations" in
>>  this section is a source of confusion, especially since some of the
>>  bullets in the "for all Recommendations" list actually seem only to
>>  apply to PER (e.g., the second and third bullets). I urge you to
>>  split the descriptions of "REC after CR" and "REC after PER" in
>>  clean sections. It may be a little longer but I think will reduce
>>  confusion.
> I *think* I already did this in the latest draft - please check (it's now section 7.5).

I glanced at the new draft; looks like you did it indeed. Thanks!
>> - 7.5 Publishing a Working Group or Interest Group Note
> Now 7.7
>>    "W3C must publish any unfinished specifications on the
>>     Recommendation track as Working Group Notes. "
>> I suggest we change that to SHOULD. The sentence that follows says
>> SHOULD for a different scenario:
>>   "If a Working group decides, or the Director requires, the Working
>>    Group to discontinue work on a technical report before completion,
>>    the Working Group should publish the document as a Working Group
>>    Note."
>> It is not clear to me that the rationale of "closing the group" is
>> materially different from any other piece of rationale the Director
>> might have.
> This has been discussed before (in an AB meeting before we made the discussion open). The rationale for the difference is that there is no effective way to require a Working Group to publish a Note shelving their work, especially in the case where they have been told to shut down. But it is feasible, and IMHO reasonable, to insist that W3C team do it.
> If you want to re-open the discussion, please raise an issue.

Issue 80:
>> - 7.7 Rescinding a W3C Recommendation
> Now 7.8
>> I understand the process this way:
>>  1) Public discussion about a spec happens. The result of public
>>     discussion is that we realize the spec should be rescinded.
>> 2) A WG REQUESTS that a spec be rescinded.
> That step is optional. It may be, for example, that there isn't a Working Group to make the request. Hence the "or"

My point is trying to distinguish a "Request to the Director" from "The Director sends the proposal to the community
to rescind the spec." In all cases that proposal must come from the Director. But there may be 0, 1, or many requests
to rescind.

>>  3) The Director elects (either on his own or based on a request) to
>>     PROPOSE that the spec be rescinded, after which there is a
>>     "review period."
>>  4) At the end we announce the result.
>> There is confusion in this section about requests and proposals. For example,
>> the document says:
>>   "In addition a Working Group proposing to rescind
>>     must show that the request to rescind has received wide review"
>> What wide review are we talking about? Does this mean that there
>> needs to have been some discussion BEFORE the group requests that the
>> spec be rescinded? If so then the second bullet, which says "the
>> request to rescind is based on public comment" covers that. If "wide  review" refers to the review period about to start, then I don't
>> understand.
> It is the former. I raised issue 77, but I propose to delete the second bullet, not the first.
>> I suggest this section be adjusted so use this language:
>>   * A WG REQUESTS that a spec be rescinded
>>   * The Director PROPOSES (to the community) that the spec be rescinded.
> Yep, Editorial and it shall be done.
>> That should eliminate the need to say "a Working Group or the
>> Director" since only WGs "request" and only the Director "proposes".
> Hmmm. Since a WG can request on their own, *or* the director can proposed without a WG request, we stil need an or there. But I'll try to clarify the language a bit more.

I am urging you to consider a request as input to the Director (and there may be none). And the proposal to be output from the Director.

Thanks Chaals!


Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 05:09:33 UTC

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