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

Re: New draft - please review

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:38:09 -0500
Message-ID: <530210C1.1040202@w3.org>
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Steve Zilles <steve@zilles.org>, public-w3process@w3.org, ab@w3.org

On 2/17/2014 6:05 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.

I'm not sure what you mean by trying to check an algorithm with no data.

Should I understand what you mean, or should I just wait for the next 
draft and see if I am still confused?

>
>>>       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
>
Received on Monday, 17 February 2014 13:38:20 UTC

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