- From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:42:20 -0800
- To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <52F9E26C.5000908@linux.intel.com>
On 2/10/2014 9:41 PM, Ian Jacobs wrote: > On Feb 5, 2014, at 8:03 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > >> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 03:11:15 +0400, Charles McCathie Nevile <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 > > Charles, > > Thanks for the updated Rec Track Process draft [1] and invitation to > review. Here are some comments! > > Ian > > [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/acebbefd27bb/tr.html > > ===== > > - Preamble: "Errata cannot be made normative except by republishing a > Recommendation or a Revised Recommendation". I think "republishing a > Recommendation" is the same as "a Revised Recommendation". If that's > not the case, please explain, otherwise you can probably just say > "by revising a Recommendation." > > - 7.1: Suggest changing text from: "For a technical specification, > once review suggests the work has been completed and the document is > good enough to become a new standard, there will then be a Candidate > Recommendation phase..." > > To: "For a technical specification, once review demonstrates that a > group has fulfilled its technical requirements, there will then be a > Candidate Recommendation phase..." > > Rationale: > > * "Good enough" sounds informal an ill-defined > * The phrase "work has been completed" may be misleading > > The proposed language is drawn from the language used in the CR > maturity level definition. > > - Four separate sections of the document talk about Notes: 7.1 (2 > paragraphs), 7.1.2 (1 paragraph), 7.3.3 (1 paragraph), and 7.8 (a > few more paragraphs). I believe you can consolidate all this text > and remove some of the redundancy. I am happy to propose concrete > edits if you think that would be useful. > > - 7.1: "Individual Working Groups and Interest Groups may adopt > additional processes for developing publications, so long as they do > not conflict with the requirements in this chapter." > > Proposed editorial change: "Different Working Groups and Interest > Groups typically evolve different internal processes for developing > documents. Such processes MUST NOT conflict with the requirements in > this chapter." > > I think the word "Additional" does not quite capture what I think > you are referring to: operational details (which may very by group). > > - Some places that are missing text following the reintroduction of PR: > > * 7.1.1: In the first list, missing a bullet for PR > * 7.4: In the first list, missing PR as expected next step. > > - 7.1.2: "Substantive changes must not be made to a Proposed > Recommendation except by publishing a new Candidate Recommendation." > > Is it possible for the Director to return a PR to WD? > > - 7.1.2: "Editor's drafts have no official standing whatsoever, and do > not imply consensus of a Working Group or Interest Group, nor are > their contents endorsed in any way by W3C." > > I suggest "do not necessarily imply consensus of a WG or IG." > > - 7.2.3.1 Wide review. Suggest changing "A recommended practice is > making a specific announcement to other W3C Working Groups as well > as the general public, especially the sub-communities thereof that > are affected by this specification, that a group proposes to enter > Candidate Recommendation in e.g. approximately four weeks. " > > to: > > "Group's SHOULD inform others of their schedule to advance to > CR. The recommended practice is to make a specific announcement to > other W3C Working Groups as well as the general public, especially > to communities with known dependencies." > > - 7.2.4: > > 1) "to ensure that independent interoperable implementations of each > feature of the specification will be realized." Suggest s/will/can/ > > 2) "created by other" suggest "created by other people" > > 3) "creation, consuming, publishing" are different forms of speech. > One alternative: "(authoring, consuming, publishing...)" > > - 7.3.2 (editorial): s/from review from beyond/from review beyond/ > > - 7.4.1: Suggest deleting this section and simply incorporating > what's needed in 7.4. > > Also note the missing word "NOT" in "MUST [NOT] approve the publication > of a revised CR." > > - 7.4: "The Director must announce the publication of a Candidate > Recommendation to other W3C groups and to the public, and must begin > an Advisory Committee Review of the specification on publication." > > Suggest deleting "on publication" as unnecessary (and possibly > over-constraining). > > - 7.5: "must identify where errata are tracked, and". I believe that > we only start caring about errata a Rec. I suggest deleting this > bullet. > > - 7.5: "should not approve a Request for publication of a Proposed > Recommendation less than 35 days after the publication of the > Candidate Recommendation on which is it based [editor's note - this > is to allow for the patent policy exclusion period to expire]" > > Please simplify to: > > "should not approve a Request for publication of a Proposed > Recommendation sooner than 150 days after the publication of the > First Public Working Draft." That's the duration used in the patent > policy; it will be easier to explain and remember, instead of > introducing a new number "35". I think your suggestion would add a time constraint that doesn't need to be there. We don't need for the exclusion period for FPWD to end before Proposed Rec can begin. What we need is for Exclusion periods for both the FPWD and last Candidate REC to end before the AC review ends (at least a couple of days before to be able to react to it. In 7.5 it says: "The deadline for Advisory Committee review of the technical report /must/ be *at least* 28 days after the publication of the Proposed Recommendation." That could be: "The deadline for Advisory Committee review of the technical report /must/ be *at least* 28 days after the publication of the Proposed Recommendation and *at least* 2 days after the completion of all patent policy exclusion periods. Currently that means at least 152 days after FPWD publication and 62 days after the last CR publication." So the quickest a REC could be produced would be about 153 days. (with CR starting before the FPWD exclusion period ended and the 2 exclusion periods overlapping). > > - 7.5: For other steps you have a "Possible next steps" section; this is > missing for PR. > > - 7.7.1: Errata management. Is this text still relevant given the > harmonization of the substantive change language? > > "Note: Before a document becomes a Recommendation, the W3C Process > focuses on substantive changes (those related to prior > reviews). After a document has been published as Recommendation, the > W3C Process focuses on those changes to a technical report that > might affect the conformance of content or deployed software." > > Seems like it can be deleted now. > > - 7.6 W3C Recommendation > > "The Director must announce the provisional approval of a Request > for publication of a W3C Recommendation to the Advisory Committee," > > I agree the Director must provide rationale for overriding formal > objections. The Director can do so in the Director's decision. But > we should not add a 14-day waiting period after the close of PR > review. There has never been an appeal of a Recommendation > decision. So the 14 days will almost never serve any purpose. If > there is ever an appeal we can deal with it then. > > Please do not include this requirement to announce provisional > approval. > > - 7.9 Rescinding a W3C Recommendation > > I still believe this section is confusing. See my suggested changes > from December: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Dec/0043.html > > > -- > Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs > Tel: +1 718 260 9447 > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 08:42:55 UTC