RE: The Procedures the AB is Using in Revising the W3C Process Document

Thanks Steve, for the update.
One thing that caught my attention is the new PER (Proposed Edited Recommendation) stage, a term that was also used in Coralie's email re TTML 1.0 (Second Edition) moving to PER.
Is PER already an approved stage in the process? Would help if AB could shed light into the changes undergoing to process document, perhaps even better if you could host a short webinar to the AC!

Regards,
Suresh





From: Steve Zilles [mailto:steve@zilles.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 4:20 PM
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Cc: W3C Members; chairs@w3.org; ab@w3.org
Subject: The Procedures the AB is Using in Revising the W3C Process Document

All,

The Goal (of the W3C Process Document Revision)
Make the W3C Process as simple and straightforward as possible (consistent with IPR and legal considerations, specification quality, fairness, and transparency) and make it equally friendly to specification development using Agile methodologies as well as Waterfall methodologies.

The Mechanism
The AB is responsible for evolving the W3C Process [0]. It intends to do this work primarily in public view, in the interest of being transparent and to solicit issues and comments, but the AB retains the responsibility for prioritizing the issues it considers and guiding the evolution of the W3C Process Document.
[0] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/processdoc.html#GAProcess

Because Chapter 7 of the existing Process Document describes the "set of steps and requirements followed by W3C Working Groups to standardize Web technology," the AB  is focusing its efforts on completing a re-write of that chapter first. And will follow with updates to the rest of the document when Chapter 7 is in Last Call. In addition, the re-write of Chapter 7 is fairly far along, building on work that was initiated over a year and one half ago. That work included multiple presentations both at AC and TPAC meetings and a survey of AC Participants and Working Group Chairs.

Our goal is to have a draft that we can send to Last Call by mid-September. It is, therefore, imperative that you review the changes as soon as possible and provides comments, preferably before 9 August so that the AB has time to consider them and respond accordingly.

As noted above, the AB will send results of its work for Last Call comments to the AC and, finally, for AC Review and Director Approval, per the Process Document [1]. All AC Representatives and Working Group Chairs are invited to participate in the CG discussion.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/processdoc.html#GAProcess

The AB will publish [2] Editors Drafts and Working Drafts of revisions to the process document.
[2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/tr.html

FAQs
How can AC Representatives and Working Group Chairs participate?
The can best participate by following what is happening in the CG, both on the CG's e-mail list (public-w3process@w3.org<mailto:public-w3process@w3.org>) and on its Issue Tracker[3]. This can be done most easily by joining the CG, but it can also be done by monitoring mail archive and tracker without having to join the CG.
[3] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/

Are CG members empowered to raise issues?
Yes, they can raise issues on the CG Issue Tracker[3], but the Advisory Board will prioritize its handling the issues raised. The W3C Process Document Editor will  maintain a wiki page in the CG that lists open issues and their status within the AB (accepted, later, ...)

Can CG members edit the Process Document drafts?
No, only the Process Document Editor is empowered to edit the editor's drafts and only the Advisory Board is empowered to publish new Working Drafts. Suggested edits can be sent to the CG Tracker and will be handled per the previous question.

Can the CG comment on and decide issues for itself?
Yes, such decisions are, per the scope of the CG, suggestions to the AB for how the Process Document should evolve. It is a bit awkward for the AB and the CG to share an Issue Tracker because they are independent Groups, but because the topic is of interest to both groups, sharing the Issue list seems to be likely to be more productive than having two separate lists. Therefore, comments on what the AB is doing (or not doing) with the Process Document are certainly welcome and a main reason for sharing the discussion space between the AB and the CG.

Is the AB taking over the CG?
No, The CG has its role of "examining the way W3C works and propose improvements to the formal processes." As noted above, it can continue to do this independently of what is happening in the AB. Hopefully there will be more cooperation between the two communities than independence, but the two Groups are structurally independent.

What is the schedule?
The goal of the Advisory Board is to have a revised version of Chapter 7 of the W3C Process Document by the September time frame. That will be the current focus. Other issues may or may not get addressed during this focus period.

Steve Zilles
Chair, W3C Advisory Board

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.