List of issues on Chapter 7.

The following is the list of issue raised with respect to Charles' draft of a revised Chapter 7 of the Process Document. I am distributing this to the AB and to public-w3process@w3.org<mailto:public-w3process@w3.org> per our recent approval of a public discussion of the Process Document on that list. We may have to live with cross postings until everyone is on the public-w3process@w3.org<mailto:public-w3process@w3.org> list.


1.       What does "widely reviewed" mean and how is it encouraged/insured? (Jeff 2)


2.       Is there a need for a "Call" whether called "Last Call" or not that precedes CR and indicates that the WG believes it is done (no open issues) and a last review should be undertaken? This may be different than Last Call in the current process. (Jeff 2)


3.       Do "working drafts" or "heartbeat working drafts" represent Working Group consensus or not? (Ralph)



4.       I believe there is AB agreement that a WG need only address issued raised since it last addressed issues. In today's process, Comments are typically formally address only on LCs and CRs. Some WGs address comments on every Public (Heartbeat) draft so the requirement might be rephrased as "MUST formally address comments that have arisen since the last draft on which comments were formally addressed. (Ralph)



5.       Does a section on "Goals of the Process" belong in the Process document? (Steve)



6.       Does a section on the Requirements for a Recommendation belong at the beginning of Chapter 7? (Steve)


7.       In 7.1, previously CR was to "gather" implementation experience, but now LCCR is to "formalis(z)e" implementation experience.  Is there a difference between the terms - and if not - why change them. (Jeff)



8.       In addition, the definition of LCCR specifies that the document is for "final review by the AC" but not by the Director (or the Public). Why not? (Jeff)



9.       Need to include a definition of "Substantive Change" (Ralph, Jeff 2)



10.   In "SHOULD (was must for CR+ in 7.2) provide public documentation of significant editorial changes to the technical report since the previous step." Two issues



a.       Should this be a MUST or SHOULD? (Ralph)

b.      Only significant changes or all changes? (Jeff 2)



11.   In "SHOULD (was must for CR+ in 7.2) report which, if any, of the Working Group's requirements for this document have changed since the previous step." Why the change?


12.   In "SHOULD (was must for CR+ in 7.2) report any changes in dependencies with other groups." Two issues:



a.       Should this be a MUST or SHOULD? (Steve, Jeff 2)

b.      Should there be an update on the status of dependency review and resolution.



13.   In, "SHOULD (was must for CR+ in 7.2) show evidence of wide review." Why the change?


14.   How should substantive issues that arrive after LCCR be handled? The existing Process seems to allow the Working Group to advance a document without addressing such issues (See section 7.3 of existing process) (Jeff)



15.   In 7.4.1b "Heartbeat" Working Draft, bullet 1, Consensus MUST be required to publish a (Heartbeat) Working draft (Steve) and the requirement to Record the Working Group's decision is to Publish (not Advance) (Ralph) (See also 3. Above)


16.   In 7.4.2 Last Call Candidate Recommendation, Bullet 1 is attempting to capture the existing requirement to document changes to requirements.  The current language "listing of unfulfilled requirements and the rationale for advancing the document though some requirements have not been met" is stronger and preferable (Ralph, Steve)


17.   In 7.4.2 Last Call Candidate Recommendation, Bullet 3 lists specific holidays, such lists should be avoided because they are likely to be incomplete. Perhaps the review period should be set at 4 weeks (28 days) because it is likely to be a holiday somewhere. (Jeff)



18.   In 7.4.5 Publication of a W3C Recommendation, the notion of "publishing a document as a Basis for a Recommendation" is introduced. How does this differ from a PR and what is the improvement? (Steve)



19.   In 7.4.5 Publication of a W3C Recommendation, the requirement that all substantive issues raised on the LCCR (whether from AC Members or not) be reported to the Director seems to be missing. (Ralph)



20.   In 7.4.5 Publication of a W3C Recommendation, the existing requirement for implementation is, "Show that each feature of the technical report has been implemented. Preferably, the Working Group should be able to demonstrate two interoperable implementations of each feature." This is changed in the new draft. Why? (Jeff)


21.   In 7.4.5 Publication of a W3C Recommendation, the following text from Bullet 2, "If the Director believes that immediate Advisory Committee review is critical to the success of a technical report, the Director may accept to Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation even without adequate implementation experience;" was omitted. Why? (Jeff)


22.   In 7.4.5 Publication of a W3C Recommendation, Bullet 2 calls for "the document being available for effective public review" How does this differ from "Wide Review"? How does this differ from the General Requirements for Advancement? (Jeff, Steve)



23.   In 7.5 Publishing a Working Group or Interest Group /+Note+/, What is the rationale for promoting from SHOULD to MUST the publication of a Working Draft as a Note upon closing a Working Group? (Ralph)


24.   In 7.6.2 Changes to a Recommendation, Item 4. New Features, restore the text that said, "[A Working Group] MUST follow the full process of advancing a technical report to Recommendation" (Ralph)


25.   In the existing Section 7, there is valuable advice and structure in the parts that have been removed because they were only "advice".  The Chair and Editor are requested to collaborate to find a place for such advice which can be linked to from the new Section 7. (Jeff)

The documents referred to above, all only AB accessible are:
Jeff: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Team/ab/2013AprJun/0145.html
Ralph: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Team/ab/2013AprJun/0126.html
Steve: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Team/ab/2013AprJun/0127.html

Every effort was made to make the issue list self-evident and not require reference to these documents. The names were attached to issues only to help identify who raised the issue.

Steve Zilles
AB Chair