Re: New draft - please review

Chaals,
I am OK with your suggested resolutions below, but did not see the changes in the 14 Feb draft which pops up for me. Is there a further update coming soon?

Steve Z

Sent from my Motorola ATRIX™ 4G on AT&T

-----Original message-----
From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
To: Steve Zilles <steve@zilles.org>, public-w3process@w3.org, ab@w3.org, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Sent: Mon, Feb 17, 2014 11:05:00 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: New draft - please review

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 22:26:38 +0100, Jeff Jaffe 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.

Indeed.

>> * 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.

cheers

Chaals

--Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com