W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > October 2013

Re: New draft of Chapter 7 Process proposal

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:14:55 -0700
Cc: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <D0467585-BA69-411C-84B0-E7707D9C2925@apple.com>
To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>

On Oct 18, 2013, at 7:12 , Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:

> On 10/17/2013 9:44 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>> as always at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/tr.html
>> changes were mostly related to Ivan Herman's comments and subsequent discussion:
>> - tweaked and poked at Section 7.6.2 on modifying a recommendation
>> - added requirements for status to be unique, and explicitly identify if a spec is published as a provisionally approved Recommendation (technically, there is no requirement to republish in this case) or a W3C Recommendation (Yes, these really need to be republished still :) ).
>> - Some editorial stuff
>> Full changelog at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/
>> Your comments on the changes, or the document as is, are as always very welcome.
>> There are now 7 issues pending review. Issues 2 and 37 are old and I think only pending review because we forget them. 44-46 are from the last draft (there has been no meeting of the Ch7TF since then). Issue 47 is dealt with in this draft, but I am not sure if it is ready for closing, and would really appreciate a close look. Issue 48 is also dealt with in this draft, and while of course I appreciate feedback I am happier that it has been handled reasonably.
>> There is also the open issue 39 (transition) and accompanying discussion on this list.
>> Finally, Ivan Herman points out that the name Last Call Candidate Recommendation is horrid. I agree, but think we need "Last Call" in the title to help us clarify that it is the stage referred to in the Patent Policy as "Last Call". Anyone have a good idea for this?
> How about "Last Call"?

Neat, I wonder where you thought that!

I think the process should give a name to a document that the WG thinks is 'done' and wants formal public review on, even if nothing is tied to it.  How about PR (Public Review)?  Otherwise, neither the WG nor the public know when a public WD is 'complete'.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 23:15:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:16 UTC