Suggested and Adopted updates to the Dec 11 Process Document Draft, part 2

>From the Jan 6th TF discussion:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jan/0007.html

4.       The Candidate Recommendation Maturity Level begins the AC Review process, but section 7.4 does not currently say this. There should be a statement to this effect following the paragraph that begins, 'A Candidate Recommendation corresponds to a "Last Call Working Draft"'. This statement should say when this Review period ends. See also Issue 81:
  http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/81

5.       Section 7.4, in its Possible Next Steps section, refers to "Request Recommendation status (The expected next step)", but there seems to be no section (or sub-section) associated with this status.

(I think that part of the problems is the use of different terminology for "Request Recommendation status", "provisional approval of a Request for publication of a W3C Recommendation" and "Publishing a Candidate Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation". These may be the same thing (or not), but their relationship is not clear, and in the current draft they seem to be referring to different things. What needs to be clear is who initiates the request for provisional approval, what are the entry conditions and when does it happen. If this is what section 7.5.2 is about, then it does not adequately distinguish between provisional approval and final approval (two different steps). See Issue 82
  http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/82
There was also discussion of whether "Provisional Approval" should show up in 7.1 Mike Champion argued that PA is really just Proposed Recommendation, noting that the actual AC Review began with CR so why change the name?

6.       Section 7.4, 3rd bullet, says, "must document how adequate implementation experience will be demonstrated." Section 7.5.2 has two bullets, 2 and 6 which (a) seem to be saying the same thing and (b) refer to "testing" which is not a requirement only a suggestion. Therefore it is suggested that these two bullets in 7.5.2 be combined into a single bullet 2; e.g., "must show adequate implementation experience; e.g., document how the testing and implementation requirements identified as part of the transition to Candidate Recommendation have been met,"

7.       It was noted that there is an apparent contradiction between sections 7.2.2 General Requirements and 7.3.1 First Public Working Draft. Because there is no "prior maturity level" for a FPWD, the bullets in 7.2.2 (2 and 3, and possibly 6 and 7) that refer to change since a prior step/maturity level do not apply. This is perhaps a bit subtle even if actually correct. No particular change was suggested, but perhaps noting that there is no prior Maturity Level for a FPWD would be useful in conjunction with the reference to the General Requirements.

>From the Jan 6th TF discussion:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jan/0009.html

8.       Issue 56
http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/56
was resolved to make the following change section 7.2.3.1 Wide Review, change "the general public" to  "the general public, especially the sub-communities thereof that are affected by this specification".
(Here affected sub-communities clearly include ones with identified dependencies.)

9.       The last paragraph of section 7.1 begins with, "Working Groups and Interest Groups may publish "Editor's drafts"." Issue 57
http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/57
was resolved to change "publish" (in the sentence above) to "make available".

10.   Bullet 2 of section 7.2.3 says, "are there independent interoperable implementations?" It was RESOLVED that this be modified to say, "are there independent interoperable implementations of the current specification?" In addition, the first bullet, which begins with, "is each feature implemented," be changed to say, "is each feature of the current specification implemented,"

Steve Zilles
Chair, AB Task Force on the Process Document