W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > February 2014

Re: New draft - please review

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:26:38 -0500
Message-ID: <52F9440E.5070901@w3.org>
To: Steve Zilles <steve@zilles.org>, 'Charles McCathie Nevile' <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, public-w3process@w3.org, ab@w3.org

On 2/10/2014 1:08 PM, Steve Zilles wrote:
> 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?

Steve, your explanation is adequate.  I remove comment #3.

> 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 
> <chaals@yandex-team.ru> <mailto: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
Received on Monday, 10 February 2014 21:26:50 UTC

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