Re: w3process-ISSUE-67 (Ch7-Education-Is-the-Key): Rather than change LC and CR, it seems like it would be more effective to attack the cycle problem via Education and Outreach [Document life cycle (ch 7)]

On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 02:32:13 +1100, Revising W3C Process Community Group  
Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> w3process-ISSUE-67 (Ch7-Education-Is-the-Key): Rather than change LC and  
> CR, it seems like it would be more effective  to attack the cycle  
> problem via Education and Outreach [Document life cycle (ch 7)]

Under the current process, a simple substantive change during Candidate  
Recommendation, even if it is widely agreed as a result of broad  
implementation experience and does not produce any dissent, requires a  
return to Last Call.

The only way to avoid this is to find some weasel-words to argue that the  
substantive change isn't one - i.e. to lie in order to reduce the overhead  
of the Process. There is nevertheless a strong temptation to do this,  
since the return to LC introduces a bureaucratic overhead, suggests that  
the work was of poor quality since it has gone *backwards*, and does not  
appear to bring any real benefit compared to a simple requirement for  
getting review of the change, which would happen under the new proposal  
where the document would go CR->CR.

Any changes introduced without a return to Last Call are not covered by a  
new exclusion opportunity, which is counter to the spirit of the Patent  
Policy.

While support for chairs and Working Groups is an extremely important task  
for W3C IMHO, it doesn't change this requirement of the process, nor  
reduce the temptation to pretend nothing changed or to avoid changes  
people think should be made.

I propose to close this issue with no changes to the proposed draft.

cheers

Chaals

...
> Rather than change LC and CR, it seems like it would be more effective
> to attack the cycle problem via Education and Outreach f.ex. create Best
> Practices that describe the cycle problem, provide guidance on how to
> avoid the problem, encourages early testing, encourages early
> implementations, etc. (Very few new WGs are created each year and if the
> new WG Chair(s) is inexperienced, the Team should provide extra support
> to the group to make sure they understand the potential `gotchas` and
> how to avoid them.)
>
> ]]
>
>
>


-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Thursday, 28 November 2013 13:53:24 UTC