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

Re: w3process-ISSUE-80: Publishing Note to end unfinished REC should only be SHOULD

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 02:01:05 +0400
To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, "Stephen Zilles" <szilles@adobe.com>
Cc: "Michael Champion (mcham@microsoft.com)" <mcham@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <op.xa3ef3rby3oazb@5.255.232.42-red.dhcp.yndx.net>
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 22:28:49 +0400, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>  
wrote:

> Section 7.3.3 Stopping work on a Specification currently says,
>
> "If the Director closes a Working Group W3C must publish any unfinished  
> specifications on the Recommendation track as Working Group Notes. If a  
> Working group decides, or the Director requires, the Working Group to  
> discontinue work on a technical report before completion, the Working  
> Group should publish the document as a Working Group Note."

s/requires, the/requires the/

> It would be more clear if it said,
>
> "If the Director closes a Working Group W3C must publish any unfinished  
> specifications on the Recommendation track as Working Group Notes. If a  
> Working group decides to discontinue work on a technical report before  
> completion, the Working Group should publish the document as a Working  
> Group Note. If the Director requires the Working Group to discontinue  
> work on a technical report before completion and the Working Group fails  
> to publish unfinished work as a Working Group Note, W3C must publish any  
> unfinished specifications as Working Group Notes."
>
> This is more verbose, but is also more accurate.

No. I have repeatedly argued that there is no reason to make this more  
complicated rule.

Serious arguments were raised against *requiring* W3C to publish things in  
the first place. Requiring them to publishin the third case would  
effectively absolve the WG of the requirement.

We resolved that the existing approach reached a middle ground. I'm happy  
to reopen this issue (it has been discussed several times already) but I  
personally feel that the change is inappropriate and that the middle  
ground we have is reasonable.

> [It has been noted that the third "If" above has not yet occurred in
> practice and that if it did there are other ways (like refusing to
> renew a charter) to encourage a functioning WG to fulfill their "should
> publish" obligation. ]

Nothing stops W3C from publishing the work if they want to.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 01:01:40 UTC

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