- From: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:18:15 +0100
- To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Dear all,
The minutes of the Chapter 7 Revisions meeting of Monday 25 November 2013
are available at:
https://www.w3.org/2013/11/25-w3process-minutes.html
A text snapshot follows; the summary per topic is included in the
"Contents" section.
Cheers,
Coralie
==================================================================
Chapter 7 Revisions
25 Nov 2013
These minutes are public. Some links may be visible only to the
W3C Advisory Board.
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Nov/0047.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2013/11/25-w3process-irc.txt
Attendees
Present
Ralph Swick, Coralie Mercier (scribe), Jeff Jaffe,
fantasai, Steve Zilles
Regrets
Chair
Steve Zilles
Scribe
koaliie
Contents and summary
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Sending e-mail listing issues raised during chapter
7 Last Call
Steve Zilles will write an announcement that the Last
Call Period is closed and provide a list of the Issues
that were identified.
2. [6]Issue-39 -- Managing the transition to a new TR
cycle
Ralph Swick will draft a proposal, based on input
gathered during a TPAC2013 breakout.
3. [7]Issue-51 -- What to do with the Status section?
Steve Zilles will seek text from Charles McCathie
Nevile to resolve this issue. The Task Force also
expressed interest in seeing a proposal from fantasai
on a new layout of spec status section.
4. [8]Issue-55 -- AC Meetings should not be scheduled to
overlap All WG meetings
Steve Zilles will write back to Charles McCathie
Nevile (chair of the Revising the W3C Process CG) that
this isn't a process issue.
5. [9]Issue-50 -- If LC and CR are combined, Director's
Calls can be excessive overhead
The Task Force opened this raised issue and noted that
it should be moot when the edits to distinguish
re-publishing a CR draft (which for non-subtantive
changes does not require the Director's Approval) and
re-starting CR (which is necessary for substantive
changes) which starts the IPR review clock for the
substantive changes and does require the Director's
approval (but not necessarily a Director's phone call
- that is up to the Director to decide) are done.
6. [10]Issue-54 -- Change Recommendation to Standard
The Task Force defered this issue as the focus of the
current set of Process Changes has been to facilitate
Agile Standards Development within the Process. This
proposed change would do nothing to further agility.
Therefore the TF proposed to return this Issue to
"Raised" for consideration in some future revision of
the Process Document.
7. [11]Issue-52 -- How is satisfying "widely reviewed"
encouraged/ensured?
Discussion of this issue, both in various fora
(ac-forum and public-w3process) and that W3C Process
Task Force has shown that there is a desire for
1. a standard signal that the document is (mostly)
complete and ready for review as a whole.
2. having every Working Draft (WD) have, up front,
an indication of what should be reviewed in this
draft. The above signal can be used in this
"section" to describe that status of the document
as a whole.
One possible name for this signal could be
"Functionally Complete". This would mean that the
Working Group thought it had completed its work and
was asking the reviewers for confirmation that that is
true. The use of this signal would be optional and its
use would not either be necessary nor sufficient to
meet the criteria for "Wide Review".
One possible name for a section that indicates what to
review could be, "Review Considerations" This section
SHOULD be present at the beginning of the document and
should highlight sections of the document that are
most appropriate for review. This is different from
the list of changes since the last version, but it may
link to that list as appropriate.
8. [12]New raised issues to consider
Steve Zilles read from his notes a few comments that
Larry Masinter made verbally.
1. [13]Wide-review from groups outside the W3C
The Task Force accepted to raise the issue of how
are groups outside the W3C, but with dependencies
on a specification notified of a pending LCCR?.
[14]ISSUE-56: How are groups outside the W3C, but
with dependencies on a specification notified of
a pending LCCR?
2. [15]Avoid using the term "publishing" for
Editor's Drafts
The Task Force accepted to raise the issue that
to reserve the term "publish" for drafts done by
action of the Working Group or a parent entity
such as the W3C, it is suggested that the term
"publish" in the last paragraph of section 7.1 be
changed to "make available". An alternative would
be, "make available public". [16]ISSUE-57: Avoid
using the term "publishing" for Editor's Drafts.
3. [17]Clarifying that implementation experience is
for specification being progressed
The Task Force accepted to raise the issue to
clarify that implementation experience is for
specification being progressed. [18]ISSUE-58:
Clarifying that implementation experience is for
specification being progressed.
* [19]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
[14] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/56
[16] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/57
[18] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/58
<koalie> [20]Previous meeting (2013-11-15)
[20] https://www.w3.org/2013/11/15-w3process-minutes.html
<scribe> scribenick: koaliie
SteveZ: agenda had open issues 39 and 51
... and raised issues
... 50, 52 and 54
[missing chaals and Mike Champion]
SteveZ: Any other issues need to be discussed?
Sending e-mail listing issues raised during chapter 7 Last Call
Jeff: yes
<jeff> [missing Zakim]
<Ralph> [missing RRSAgent]
Jeff: The deadline for AC comments on the document
... is 27 November per
[21]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2013OctDe
c/0083.html
... Around that, I think a couple of questions arise
... Most WGs have a cadence associated with deadlines,
discussions
... Should an e-mail go out with thank you note for issues
... and telling we're not accepting other issues?
... or should we send a reminder e-mail?
... Wondering about proper etiquette.
... Another point
... Discussion last week and on ac-forum. In most cases, other
than AB members, no one has raised formal issues
... We raise formal issues on people's behalf
... E-mail racap'ing the issues?
[21]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2013OctDec/0083.html
SteveZ: A combination of what you said
... on 28 Nov we say the comment period is closed and list the
issues we recognise
... based on the comments we saw on ac-forum and w3process
lists
... and use that as a trigger for people to say we missed such
and such.
Jeff: Thanks, that's responsive to my points.
SteveZ: The normal procedure is we begin work on the day of the
deadline and comments dribble in
... they will be most likely processable
... we're moving toward consensus.
... except around "wide review"
... although we've made progress.
<scribe> ACTION: SteveZ to draft such a message
<trackbot> Created ACTION-19 - Draft such a message [on Steve
Zilles - due 2013-12-02].
action-19: on 28 Nov we say the comment period is closed and
list the issues we recognise based on the comments we saw on
ac-forum and w3process lists, and use that as a trigger for
people to say we missed such and such.
<trackbot> Notes added to action-19 Draft such a message.
SteveZ: I had exchanges with with Larry Masinter
... I seem to recall Ralph took an action relevant to issue-39
Issue-39 -- Managing the transition to a new TR cycle
issue-39?
<trackbot> issue-39 -- Managing the transition to a new TR
cycle -- open
<trackbot>
[22]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/39
[22] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/39
Ralph: We had a breakout but I didn't draft a message to the
Chairs
<Ralph> action-15?
<trackbot> action-15 -- Ralph Swick to Draft message to chairs
asking them to think about and prepare to share thoughts on the
transition plan -- due 2013-11-04 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[23]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/15
[23] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/15
Ralph: that was action-15
<Ralph> ISSUE-39: TPAC breakout discussion record
[24]http://www.w3.org/2013/11/13-w3process-minutes.html#item02
[24] http://www.w3.org/2013/11/13-w3process-minutes.html#item02
<trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-39 Managing the transition to a
new TR cycle.
Ralph: I'm happy to put out a proposal
<trackbot> Created ACTION-20 - Draft an updated proposal for
issue-39 [on Ralph Swick - due 2013-12-02].
<Ralph> ACTION: Ralph draft an updated proposal for issue-39
Issue-51 -- What to do with the Status section?
issue-51?
<trackbot> issue-51 -- What to do with the Status section? --
open
<trackbot>
[25]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/51
[25] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/51
<Ralph> [26]Friday 15-Nov AB Process Revision discussion record
[26] https://www.w3.org/2013/11/15-w3process-minutes.html
[whether or not to action someone who isn't on the call?]
<scribe> ACTION: SteveZ to ping chaals on text for issue-51
<trackbot> Created ACTION-21 - Ping chaals on text for issue-51
[on Steve Zilles - due 2013-12-02].
SteveZ: I don't think there is controversy on that one, we just
need to see text to resolve it.
Issue-55 -- AC Meetings should not be scheduled to overlap All WG
meetings
Steve: Now on the raised issues.
... Art raised issue-55
issue-55?
<trackbot> issue-55 -- AC Meetings should not be scheduled to
overlap All WG meetings -- raised
<trackbot>
[27]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/55
[27] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/55
<Ralph> [28]raised [not yet open] issues
[28] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/raised
SteveZ: I'd put this in the "not a process issue" category,
certainly not an issue for Chapter 7
Ralph: I agree
... I also doubt it's a process issue.
... But the community can followup on it.
SteveZ: I'll notify Art.
Jeff: Art raised this as a W3C Process issue
Ralph: I recommend Steve writes to Chaals that this isn't a
process issue
Jeff: And you can copy Art
SteveZ: I'll do that
Issue-50 -- If LC and CR are combined, Director's Calls can be
excessive overhead
issue-50?
<trackbot> issue-50 -- If LC and CR are combined, Director's
Calls can be excessive overhead -- raised
<trackbot>
[29]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/50
[29] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/50
SteveZ: I believe that this was partly a misunderstanding
... our intent was that wide review was done prior to CR. A
second piece is we clarified that we do not require a
Director's call for changes to CR
... so, my proposal is to switch this from raised to open
... and copy the text from our discussion with a proposal that
this would be closed by clarifying the repeated entry to CR
step in the process.
Ralph: It's in scope for this TF, I accept it as an open issue
... I'm not sure we have final text from the Friday discussion,
but we're close
<Ralph> action-17?
<trackbot> action-17 -- Charles McCathie Nevile to Update the
draft to make a distinction between publication and process
state changes -- due 2013-11-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[30]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/17
[30] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/17
SteveZ: Chaals took an action to update the draft and make a
distinction between publication and process state changes
... The piece that wasn't entirely resolved in my mind, was
whether a substantive change required some of the steps to be
repeated
... I believe it was clear nobody thought it was necessarily
necessary to have a full Director's call
... the presumption is there could be, but it's likely to be
given without a Director's call
Ralph: That rings a bell
... The process document itself should not require the Director
@@@
Issue-54 -- Change Recommendation to Standard
issue-54?
<trackbot> issue-54 -- Change Recommendation to Standard --
raised
<trackbot>
[31]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/54
[31] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/54
SteveZ: Change rec to standard
... I would open this and my personal feeling is that based on
discussion, it's too big a deal to do with just a revision of
Chapter 7
<Ralph> open issue-54
SteveZ: and that it would slow down the process of getting the
chapter 7 out
<Ralph> issue-54 opened
SteveZ: I think we have mixed whether this would be a good
thing or not
... and more discussion is needed, on a broader basis.
Jeff: The reason we focused on chapter 7 is that we were
interested in a more agile process
... There are other issues that we can't deliver on yet
... it's consistent with that to defer this issue, as it
doesn't do anything for agility.
SteveZ: Right
... any disagreement?
[none]
SteveZ: I'll leave is open for one more meeting and then we can
close it and we can see what the propose closure is.
Issue-52 -- How is satisfying "widely reviewed" encouraged/ensured?
issue-52?
<trackbot> issue-52 -- How is satisfying "widely reviewed"
encouraged/ensured? -- raised
<trackbot>
[32]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/52
[32] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/52
SteveZ: We reached some kind of consensus by establishing there
might be a label that optionally can be used by a WG
<Ralph> reopen issue-52
<trackbot> Re-opened issue-52.
SteveZ: to indicate they've reached a certain level of
completeness
... to encourage review
... I'm not attached to a particular label.
... There should be an explicit requirement for a section or
something, where the WG would put in what they expect is
suitable in terms of review for this particular draft.
<Ralph> +1
Ralph: I'd like to see a proposal from Elika for a layout, I
was impressed by her proposal for the Status bits
Jeff: I don't have other concerns
... If we're going to be creating this new marker,
... I think we'll need verbiage in the section describing wide
review
... to say what we mean by the marker(s)
... The marker is like a best practice; you can achieve wide
review without the marker
... and that may not be enough, even without the marker
SteveZ: By saying it's an optional signal to tell reviewers
they believe the document is complete, that would be sufficient
... [looks for suggestions from Larry Masinter]
[fantasai joins]
issue-54?
<trackbot> issue-54 -- Change Recommendation to Standard --
open
<trackbot>
[33]http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/54
[33] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/54
SteveZ: It was suggested that if you [fantasai] could make
available a pointer to the draft section, then I can add to the
text
... for the issue list
fantasai: OK
New raised issues to consider
SteveZ: Thank you
... Ralph made the point that's clearer to people what's being
discussed. that's for issue-51
... Back to Larry Masinter's comments
... he raised 5 points
Wide-review from groups outside the W3C
SteveZ: for wide-review, he would like to make sure we reach
out to other SDOs
... in the definition of wide review
Jeff: At the charter level we ensure horizontal review and so
on
... as a friendly amendment since "relevant" is in the eye of
the beholder, we should anchor "relevant" in the groups listed
in the charter
SteveZ: I take the point that this can go in the charter and
list dependencies
Avoid using the term "publishing" for Editor's Drafts
SteveZ: At the end of section 7.2,
... there is something about editor's draft. He was concerned
about the word "publish" wrt editor's drafts
... and would prefer "make available"
... on the basis that he wanted to distinguish the WG work from
the editor's work.
... That's generally not a problem except in one WG I am aware
of.
fantasai: I think that once we have a better publication
process, this becomes less of an issue because we'll have live
drafts on TR and editor's drafts won't be necessary
... at that point, given the WG will be able to push things
out, the copy on /TR will be what everyone can refer to.
... once /TR is updatable easily, the editor's draft becomes
scratch space and won't be relevant to most people.
<Ralph> +1 to Elika's framing of frequently-updated /TR and
editor's draft == scratch space for collaboration
fantasai: "make available" instead of "publish" sounds good.
<fantasai> (note, that was steve's suggestion)
Clarifying that implementation experience is for specification being
progressed
<SteveZ> Larry Masinter Would like, in Implementation
Considerations, an assertion that the implementations implement
the current specification.
<Ralph> [34]7.2.3 Implementation Experience
[34]
http://www.w3.org/2013/10/LC-TRprocess-20131024#implementation-experience
SteveZ: if I accept Jeff's point that dependencies is where
liaising with other SDOs is mentioned,
... is that generic enough?
<SteveZ> Larry suggest in Wide Review, change "review by the
general public" to "review by the general public, especially
the sub-communities thereof that are affected by this
specification."
Ralph: about implementation experience, I speculated that Larry
may be looking at second bullet of 7.2.3
SteveZ: Yes, I think that's the point.
Ralph: And if so, that's an easy edit to make.
Jeff: One more point
<Ralph> [e.g. "are there independent interoperable
implementations /+of the current specification+/?" ]
Jeff: The other wide review best practice (with other W3C WGs),
should we harmonise other best practices?
SteveZ: We need text for functionally complete
... I'll write the text so people can see it.
... The other thing is I'd like to require a review
consideration piece which the WG will use to identify which in
a particular WD is important to review
... functionally complete is what you would put in that section
... Thanks all.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Ralph draft an updated proposal for issue-39
[NEW] ACTION: SteveZ to draft such a message
[NEW] ACTION: SteveZ to ping chaals on text for issue-51
?
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [35]scribe.perl version
1.138 ([36]CVS log)
$Date: 2013-11-27 11:15:16 $
[35] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[36] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
--
Coralie Mercier - W3C Communications Team - http://www.w3.org
mailto:coralie@w3.org +336 4322 0001 http://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2013 11:18:25 UTC