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

Replies inline - basically implemented these in today's draft (just pushed  
to the repository).

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:30:22 +0100, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>  
wrote:

>
> From the Dec 16th TF Discussion minutes
>
>  http://www.w3.org/2013/12/16-w3process-minutes.html
>
> 1.       Add a paragraph at the very beginning of Chapter 7  
> (non-normative) that gives an short overview of the steps to  
> >recommendation. E.g.
>
> This chapter describes the steps to publishing and maintaining a W3C  
> Recommendation. Work begins with a First Public >Working Draft and  
> continues with subsequent public Working Drafts each of which adds to,  
> modifies and completes the scope >of work envisioned for the  
> specification that is under development. When this work is declared  
> complete and has been given >Wide Review, a Candidate Recommendation is  
> issued to complete Implementation Experience. When that is complete and  
> with >the approval of the W3C Advisory Committee a W3C Recommendation is  
> published.

I added a slightly larger text.

>
>
> 2.       Merge the "Classes of Changes to a Recommendation" with  
> "Substantive Change" per Ian Jacobs suggestions for the wording >in 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jan/0004.html
>
> where Ian proposes the following for the four classes:
>
> 1. No changes to text content
>
> 2. Changes that do not affect conformance
>
> 3. Changes that affect conformance but do not add new features
>
>     [Note: I've added "that affect conformance" to make 3. more clearly  
> mutually exclusive of 2.]
>
> 4. New features
>
> (I would say “conformance and implementations” rather than just  
> “conformance”)
> Then, a “substantive change” is just a class 3 or 4 change.

Done. Note the the current change loses the concept of "would be expected  
to invalidate a review" which I would like to get back in - I'll note that  
on ISSUE-72.

>
>
>
>> 3.       The section "Ending work on a Technical Report" disappeared.  
>> It was nice to see that there were two options; Rescind and >Note.

Except that these are pretty different cases.

>
> Though it's implied in 7.7 and 7.8, Fantasai thinks it was better to  
> have it be explicit.

Agreed, and done - as 7.3.3 (part of Working Drafts, and not including  
rescindment).

>
>  The key concern was making sure that a “dead or dormant” specification  
> is not left as a WB which implies future work, but is >republished as a  
> Note that indicates expectations, such as “work was abandon due to lack  
> of interest or resources”.
>
>
> 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"’.

Fixed.

cheers

Chaals

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