Re: Comments on 6 December 2013 Chapter 7 draft

On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:09:30 +0400, Ian Jacobs <> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2013, at 4:50 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile  
> <> wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 19:03:30 +0400, Ian Jacobs <> wrote
>>> - 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  
> and the group's public mailing list."
> Since it's in the transitions documentation, can we remove it from the  
> process document?

IMHO, No. It should be in the process, so that it doesn't stop happening  
e.g. because someone just decides that it isn't necessary since the news  
is already on the home page or something.

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

Sorry, typo. 75:

It's actually more general than this particular point, but includes it.

>>> - 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?

There isn't. The AC review goes from the beginning of CR until 4 weeks  
after the document is provisionally approved. So the AC can review the  
actual document, if it changes in CR.


>>> - 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.

Hmmm. I'm thinking about it...



Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex         Find more at

Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 10:55:19 UTC