RE: New draft - please review

Jeff, you raise some good questions. See comments inline below.

Steve Z

 

From: Jeff Jaffe [mailto:jeff@w3.org] 
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 8:05 AM
To: Charles McCathie Nevile; public-w3process@w3.org; ab@w3.org
Subject: Re: New draft - please review

1. I think the description is a bit confusing around 7.4 (CR) and 7.4.1 (Revised CR).  It might be useful to combine them somehow into one Section.  Some of the confusions are:

* There is a different list of "MUST do's".

SZ: In particular, updates on Dependencies and the plan to show “adequate Implementation Experience” are not required.

* Revised CR is not a formal state, yet it has its own treatment.

SZ: perhaps this can be just the end of the section on CRs or alternatively, the section might be called “Revising Candidate Recommendations” which is a process not a state.

* In Section 7.4 a possible next step is "Return to CR", but you really mean "Become Revised CR".

SZ: rather than have a “revised CR” there should just be “CR”s. To this end, I suggest changing, “the Director must  approve the publication of a revised Candidate Recommendation” to, “the Director must  approve the re-publication of a Candidate Recommendation.” This does not introduce a new category of document (which is unneeded as far as I can see).

I don't have a specific proposal to fix, I just note it is a bit confusing.

2. Once entering PR, I assume that the WG can no longer drop any features.  If I am correct, it is not clear to me that this is clear in the document.

SZ: I agree with your point and suggest, in section 7.5 changing,

“may remove features identified in the Candidate Recommendation document as "at risk" without repeating the transition to Candidate Recommendation” 

to 

“may remove features identified in the Candidate Recommendation document as "at risk" before republishing the Candidate Recommendation as a Proposed Recommendation, but must not make any subsequent changes to that Proposed Recommendation.”

3. Previously I pointed out that CR requires demonstrating how the test plan was achieved; even though there was no provision for a test plan in earlier stages.  I expected that the fix was to add a test plan.  Instead you dropped the requirement to demonstrate how the test plan was achieved.  Either approach would have addressed my issue, but the AB and community should discuss whether they are comfortable with your selection.

SZ: a test plan is not required. What is required is that the WG, “document how adequate implementation experience will be demonstrated” in section 7.4. That might be a test plan, but need not be. So, in section 7.5, where it says, “must show adequate implementation experience …”, this is a direct reference to the “adequate implementation experience” in the prior section. Perhaps changing the word, “show” to “demonstrate” would make the parallelism more explicit. Why does this not satisfy your concern? Would you like a stronger reference to 7.4? 

One concern that I have is that it is likely that the “documentation” described above and developed on entry to CR will have evolved during CR and I would not like a WG to be held to their original idea of how adequate implementation experience will be demonstrated if they currently (at the time of requesting PR) have a better way to do that demonstration. However, “better” is sometimes difficult to establish and the reviewers of the original “documentation” might feel betrayed if that “plan” were not followed. The current wording allows some reasonable flexibility here.

I did recall, however, that Charles had agreed to put the redundant bullet point he dropped from 7.5 in as an “e.g.”. Would that satisfy your concern?

Jeff

On 2/5/2014 9:03 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:



On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 03:11:15 +0400, Charles McCathie Nevile  <mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru> <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: 




Hi, 

I just pushed a new draft: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/20fb4f012006/tr.html 


And I just pushed an update to that: 
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/acebbefd27bb/tr.html 

There are no significant changes but I fixed the date (now 5 Feb) and there are a few editorial tweaks, to reduce confusion between the two quite different drafts dated 2 February. 




Please review because it incorporates significant changes since previous drafts. 

The most important changes are an explanation of what is required to publish a revised Candidate Rec, and the reinstatement of a Proposed Rec phase to clarify the process from Candidate Recommendation to Recommendation. 

These changes are intended to close issues 76, 77 and 84. 

The changelogs at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/ provide details, but the big changes are introduction of a new section 7.5 and changes to 7.4 and 7.6 to match. It is possible that I missed something, or was over-enthusiastic in bringing everything into line, so problems may be as simple as grammar issues or as complex as unclear or inappropriate interactions of requirements. 

With this draft I hope to have closed all the outstanding issues we except those relating to incorporating the chapter into a complete document and the deferred issue-6… 

cheers 

chaals