Re: New chapter 7 editor's draft

I think the whole thing is very good.  Here are some wording suggestions.

* Section 7.1

** Under WD should add a note:
*'**Note:*  The W3C Patent Policy 
<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy> [PUB33 
<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/refs.html#ref-patentpolicy>] 
discusses the special role of the "first public Working Draft" as well 
as other WDs when Members join or quit WGs.'

** Under LC/CR
"*Note:* Last Call Candidate Recommendations will normally be accepted 
as Recommendations. Announcement of a different next step /should/ 
include the reasons why the change in expectations comes at so late a 
stage."

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.  It seems to imply the 
relative lack of importance of any serious AC Review, Director's Review 
or feedback from the community (including other WGs) or the impact of 
implementation experience or last call intellectual property feedback.  
Obviously, LCCR's aren't going to be rejected frivolously or without 
stating a good reason, but it isn't the case that those other reviews 
should have been done earlier.  The wording seems to imply that normally 
WGs determine if something is a W3C Recommendation and that it is an 
extraordinary case if review from elsewhere alters that.  I'm not sure 
what motivates having this sentence at all.  Is it an attempt to correct 
some existing practice or to create some new policy?

** Under Working Group Note
"A Working Group /may/ also publish a specification as a Note if they 
stop work without producing a Recommendation"
I think that should be changed to
"A Working Group /may/ also republish a Working Draft as a Note if they 
stop work without producing a Recommendation"

'publish a specification as a Note" is confusing.  A specification 
implies some status as something that should be implemented.  It's 
typically what we mean be Recommendation.  This makes it sound like a 
Note is an option for publishing something considered as a spec. This 
form of a Note is when it is not going to be a spec.  (I think in a few 
places "specification" is used to mean a draft that isn't final.  Do we 
want to use it that way?  most uses I think mean the final product, but 
a few I think mean draft in this version. unfinished or draft 
specifications could be used if the spec word needs to be there.  
unfinished specification is used somewhere in this text.)

* Section 7.2

"For /all/ requests to advance a specification to a new maturity level 
other than Note the Working Group:"
needs a comma
"For /all/ requests to advance a specification to a new maturity level 
other than Note, the Working Group:"

I know there has been discussion about the bullet list at the top. The 2 
"shoulds" look like "musts" - if three are different requirements, why 
not have to report that or some new dependency.

two of the bullets refer to previous maturity level.  1 refers to 
previous step.  Does that mean different things?  Like a "step" means 
previous TR publication?

I think it would be better to remove this list - there seems to be a lot 
of duplication in the specific stages where there is some modification.  
I'd rather have everything you have to do in one place for each stage.

* Section 7.2.2 Wide Review

"particularly in light of the listed dependencies," is redundant with 
the next sentence "the Director is likely to consider the record of 
requests to and responses from groups identified as dependencies in the 
charter"


* Section 7.4.5

Under "For all W3C Recommendations", it has a requirement that appears 
to be only for Edited Recommendations, but should be for both.

"The Advisory Committee review of the technical report /must/ continue 
at least 28 days after the announcement of provisional approval to 
publish the Edited Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation."



On 7/22/2013 11:59 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> after finding some bug, I have uploaded a new editor's draft of the 
> Process Chapter 7: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/tr.html
>
> I'll post a changelog as soon as I get some more time (something 
> designed for humans who don't want to pore through the mercurial 
> record, although I try to keep that reasonably clean too).
>
> Note that I have *not* addressed ISSUE-15 - there are comments from 
> Ian on reverting all changes, comments from Jeff on some changes, and 
> I have some comments to make on finding something between total 
> reversion and what we have now.
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>