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

Re: New draft - please review

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 12:05:00 +0100
To: "Steve Zilles" <steve@zilles.org>, public-w3process@w3.org, ab@w3.org, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.xbfaemo5y3oazb@chaals.local>
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 22:26:38 +0100, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:

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

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

>>                         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.

Yes. The transition to CR from Working Draft is a step different to that  
of republishing a CR. Ditto for revising a WD. The request for a "revising  
a CR" section was an explicit part of ISSUE-59.

I'm not wedded to it except that it appears to have different requirements  
to making a transition into CR, so seems to make sense.

>>               * 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).

The wording has been changed in section 7.4.1 to clarify this, and I have  
given it a further tweak along the lines Steve proposes here, but using  
"permission to publish a revision of a CR".

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

Well, the process can be…

I believe it is very helpful when thinking of this to pick a concrete  
example and work out what you will do. Trying to check an algorithm with  
no data is especially confusing, in my experience.

>>       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.

You are, and I agree it should be clearer

>>       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.”

I believe this has since been addressed by less ambiguous wording in  
section 7.4.1, and by the addition in the upcoming draft of explicit  
statements in the Proposed Recommendation and Recommendation sections  
saying there cannot be changes from PR to REC.



Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
         chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Monday, 17 February 2014 11:05:35 UTC

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