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

I've implemented changes in the draft I will publish tonight, but not for  
everything. Note my comments inline

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 19:26:30 +0100, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
wrote:

> 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

Yep. And ISSUE-77, which covers the specific topics of issues 81 and 82.

And which I haven't actually got a clean and complete solution for in the  
draft to be published tonight :(

> 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

See my reply mentioning issue 77 above.

> 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?

Good point. I propose to reinstate the Proposed Recommendation. I'll raise  
an issue.

> 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

They don't. The first is meeting the requirement for advancement, the  
second is documenting the follow-up of a previous expectation that was set.

> and (b) refer to “testing” which is not a requirement only a suggestion.

The latter point refers to testing, although if the group does not  
identify any testing requirements when moving into CR, they won't have to  
document how those requirements were met.

> 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,”

Not done for the above reason, but I did put the two requirements together  
in the order.

> 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.

Added a note. But I think that this actually only applies to the  
requirement to address all issues, which could be moved to the transition  
to CR. The requirement to document changes to requirements should be  
"since the previous publication".

> From the Jan 6th TF discussion:

s/6th/13th/

>  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".

Done

> (Here affected sub-communities clearly include ones with identified  
> dependencies.)

I don't think so, which is why I don't much like this wording. Hopefully  
I'll come up with a better proposal soon.

> 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”.

Done

> 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,"

For what it's worth I think this change is ridiculous, since I cannot  
imagine what else the question would be about. But it's there now.

cheers

Chaals

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

Received on Monday, 20 January 2014 00:26:22 UTC