Re: Revisions to Chapter 7 of the W3C Process Document

It has been pointed out that I neglected to give a deadline for 
comments, which will be 27 November.


On 10/24/2013 3:07 PM, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
> Colleagues,
> The Advisory Board proposes revisions to Chapter 7 (Technical Report 
> Development Process) of the W3C Process to make it simpler to 
> understand, crisper to execute, yet still consistent with the patent 
> policy, by enabling process steps to happen in parallel.
> Almost two years ago, the Advisory Board began looking for ways to 
> make specification development more agile. Both in fora, such as TPAC 
> [1], and via e-mail and member surveys a number of potential topics 
> were identified [2] and prioritized [3].
> In the November 2012 TPAC Meeting [4], the Advisory Board realized 
> that some of the major issues related to agility were in the 
> complexity of Last Call, Candidate Recommendation and Proposed 
> Recommendation. Because these are completely specified in Chapter 7 of 
> the current W3C Process, we have focused on a modified Chapter 7 which 
> is being sent to you as a "Last Call" Document [5] prior to Review by 
> the Advisory Committee and adoption. The remaining process issues 
> (those not directly related to Chapter 7) have been tabled until a 
> future revision of the W3C Process. Advisory Committee Review will be 
> done on a complete Process Document with the current Chapter 7 
> replaced by the Chapter 7 that results from Last Call. The current 
> Chapter 7 is at [6].
> *Motivation:* Web technology development has changed greatly over the 
> past 20 years, and these changes keep the W3C Process in step.  Just 
> as "agile" software development stresses rapid iteration between 
> design and implementation, Web technologies are now implemented and 
> deployed in parallel with spec development. This allows us to combine 
> the Last Call and Candidate Recommendation steps since implementation 
> and testing are more frequently happening earlier than when the W3C 
> Process was formulated. The recent emphasis on early and continuous 
> testing, plus the reality that almost all WGs operate in public, means 
> that specs are widely reviewed in parallel with their polishing and 
> testing. Having fewer process steps while making the entrance and exit 
> criteria more clear and explicit should make the process simpler to 
> understand.  Refinement and review activities happen in parallel which 
> should make standardization faster.  We maintain alignment with the 
> Patent Policy to minimize disruption. In addition to combining LC and 
> CR, the definitions of "wide review" and "implementation experience" 
> are clarified and some non-normative "advice" has been removed to 
> provide crisper exposition.
> Comments and requests for clarification are welcome.  This work is 
> done in public and the 
> <> mailing list is the best place to 
> send comments and questions.
> Jeff Jaffe, Chair, W3C Advisory Board
> Charles McCathie-Nevile, Editor, W3C Process Document
> Steve Zilles, Chair, W3C Process Document Task Force
> [1] There were a number of relevant break-out sessions at TPAC 2011:
>       and at TPAC 2012:
> [2] 
> [3]
> [4] 
> Day 2, item 4.
> [5]
> [6] 
> <>

Received on Thursday, 24 October 2013 19:55:40 UTC