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

Re: Ian Jacobs comments [Was: New draft - please review]

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:28:49 +0100
To: "Stephen Zilles" <szilles@adobe.com>, "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.xbfr6bnwy3oazb@chaals.local>
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 15:55:23 +0100, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:

>
> On Feb 17, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> Ian,
>> The text was added in Chapter 7 because it is not in the chapter in  
>> which charters are discussed
>
> Here is what 6.2.6 says [1]:
>
...
> It is clear that in order for Chapter 7 to be published, the entire  
> Process Document will need to be republished. Therefore, rather than put  
> a requirement on charters in section 7, if the above does not suffice,  
> let's just leave an open issue on 6.2.6 to be resolved when the document  
> as a whole is republished.

As I understood the request from W3C, despite having had several redrafts  
of the entire document, it was to publish a new version, as far as  
practicable with changes *only* to chapter 7.

Which I thought at the time was a bit silly since there are a few more  
things we could have usefully done, IMHO without getting in the way.

But the Director decides what W3C publishes, so I worked on the assumption  
that what I had been told was the path to getting the work done without  
administrative bickering.

In this CG which has a scope greater than the process task force you are  
most welcome to raise an issue - just choose the product accordingly  
please.

cheers

Chaals

> Ian
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#WGCharter
>
>
>> and we agreed to limit our changes to Chapter 7 in this iteration. Were  
>> this not the case we could indeed drop the text you are concerned  
>> about, but it must stay given our limitation.
>>
>> Steve Z
>>
>> Sent from my Motorola ATRIX™ 4G on AT&T
>>
>> -----Original message-----
>> From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
>> To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
>> Cc: "chaals@yandex-team.ru" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>,  
>> "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
>> Sent: Sat, Feb 15, 2014 15:43:24 GMT+00:00
>> Subject: Re: Ian Jacobs comments [Was: New draft - please review]
>>
>>
>> On Feb 15, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Ian,
>> > The intent of the text in 7.1 is to specifically allow WGs to add  
>> extra process in their charter. This authorization should be in the  
>> chapter that deals with charters but cannot in this revision because we  
>> agreed to limit our updates to chapter 7. That is why the text Charles  
>> added is important as written. The intent is not,  "details can be  
>> found elsewhere".
>>
>> I'd be happy simply dropping the sentence then, if it's stated  
>> elsewhere in the process. Or something like:
>>  "See section X for information about additional chartered processes."
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> >
>> > On rereading 7.2.4, I see the point you are making and I have no  
>> strong opinion on the choice between "can" and "will".
>> >
>> > Apologizing because I only seem to be able to do top posts on my  
>> phone email client,
>> >
>> > Steve Z
>> >
>> >
>> > Sent from my Motorola ATRIX™ 4G on AT&T
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original message-----
>> > From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
>> > To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
>> > Cc: "chaals@yandex-team.ru" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>,  
>> "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
>> > Sent: Sat, Feb 15, 2014 00:27:07 GMT+00:00
>> > Subject: Re: Ian Jacobs comments [Was: New draft - please review]
>> >
>> >
>> > On Feb 14, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Ian,
>> > > The text proposed  for 7.1 implements the text that closed a prior  
>> issue (83) and the changes you suggest would reopen that issue w/o  
>> adding anything.
>> >
>> > I believe the intent of the text is to say something like "For  
>> details about how this gets done in practice, see the charter." But  
>> when I read "additional" I don't hear "details" I hear "stuff that is  
>> at the same level as what is in this document." I'm trying to convey  
>> "details can be found elsewhere."
>> >
>> > > My reading of 7.2.4 is a requirement not "feasibility".
>> >
>> > I continue to believe the limit of our endeavor is enabling, not  
>> producing actual implementations.
>> >
>> > Ian
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Fir 7.4.1 I had suggested a different set of changes in an earlier  
>> message; e.g., use "Revising a CR" rather than "Revised CR" to avoid  
>> the apparent creation of a new state.
>> > > Steve Z
>> > >
>> > > Sent from my Motorola ATRIX™ 4G on AT&T
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -----Original message-----
>> > > From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
>> > > To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
>> > > Cc: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
>> > > Sent: Fri, Feb 14, 2014 21:27:20 GMT+00:00
>> > > Subject: Re: Ian Jacobs comments [Was: New draft - please review]
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Feb 14, 2014, at 3:00 PM, "Charles McCathie Nevile"  
>> <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > With one exception, I have addressed all these comments (and the  
>> exception I expect to address later tonight).
>> > >
>> > > Thanks, Charles. Notes inline.
>> > >
>> > > Ian
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >> - 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).
>> > > >
>> > > > Other processes are in addition to the base requirements of the  
>> process which cannot be broken. I had't used MUST because this chapter  
>> doesn't cover charters and working groups - that's a different part of  
>> Process that was ruled out of scope for this round of updates.
>> > > >
>> > > > I therefore oppose this change. Feel free to raise an issue.
>> > >
>> > > I understand your point and agree the requirement should not appear  
>> in this section. Counter proposal:
>> > >
>> > >      "Different Working Groups and Interest  Groups typically  
>> evolve different internal processes for developing
>> > >      documents; these complement but do not override the  
>> requirements in this chapter."
>> > >
>> > >     (or, "these augment but do not override")
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >> - 7.2.4:
>> > > >> 1) "to ensure that independent interoperable implementations of  
>> each
>> > > >>  feature of the specification will be realized." Suggest  
>> s/will/can/
>> > > >
>> > > > That is a significant change that I oppose. The point is not that  
>> it is possible to make interoperability, but that the specification is  
>> sufficiently clear that this is what *will* happen.
>> > >
>> > > I don't object to "will," but I think "can" reflects the  
>> "feasibility" goal better than will here.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > This is part of the rationale for saying "2 interoperable  
>> implementations" is a rule of thumb that suggests we're on the right  
>> track, not a statement of what the world is actually looking for in a  
>> standard, and therefore providing 7.2.4 instead of that rough rule.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >> - 7.4.1: Suggest deleting this section and simply incorporating
>> > > >>  what's needed in 7.4.
>> > > >
>> > > > I disagree. This section was added because nobody could work out  
>> what was required (because it is unclear)
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
>
>
>


-- 
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 17:29:27 UTC

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