Re: New draft

As am I.

Thanks Chaals.

On 3/3/2014 1:19 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
> On behalf of my participation in the Task Force, I am OK with all the changes Charles agreed to and with his suggested replacement where he did not agree.
> 
> Steve Z
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru] 
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 10:07 AM
> To: Ralph Swick
> Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: Re: New draft
> 
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 05:59:34 -0800, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Chaals.
>>
>> I did one more quick-ish top-to-bottom read.  From that I have the 
>> following small suggestions:
> 
> Thank you. I consider all the changes as purely editorial, and I have the following proposals to address them. I will incorporate them in a draft, and the TF can object to the changes if they want.
> 
> I expect to post the draft tonight, while posting the current draft to the AB this morning (for consideration as their proposal to the AC) with a note that these changes may be made.
> 
>> 7.1 W3C Technical Reports, second paragraph:
>>
>>   "If /+the Director determines that+/ W3C member review
>>    /-agrees that-//+supports+/ a specification
>>    /-should be-//+becoming+/ a Standard..."
>>
>> The important change here is the first one; not removing the final 
>> decision from the Director.  The other changes are just grammar to 
>> make the sentence less awkward.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> 7.1.2 Maturity Levels, CR, second Note:
>>
>>   "Candidate Recommendations /-will normally be accepted as-/
>>   /+are expected to eventually become+/ Recommendations."
>>
>> Reduce the risk of misinterpretation of this sentence as "the outcome 
>> is predetermined."
> 
> The outcome ought to be close to predetermined. There are two sides to the issue - the Working Group should have made their CR good enough to be a Rec, and people better get their final review done if they haven't already, or they really will lose their opportunity.
> 
> How about "are expected to be acceptable as"?
> 
> In particular I don't want the "eventually" (it reads too closely to "maybe sometime in some form" in native english, and "accidentally" in non-native english).
> 
>> 7.2.3.1 Wide Review, first sentence:
>>
>>    "... by the /-p-//+W3C P+/rocess."
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> Explicit reference.  (Lowercase "process" includes an aggregation of 
>> existing and future best practices, etc. which may eventually lead to 
>> more precision.)
>>
>>
>> 7.5 Proposed Recommendation, a Working Group, 3rd bullet:
>>
>>    "... other than by Advisory Committee representatives /+acting in
>>    their formal AC representative role+/ ..."
>>
>> I understand the intent of this exception to be that an issue raised 
>> by an AC Rep as part of formal AC Review is meant to be a comment to 
>> the Director, which the Director may discuss further.  An AC Rep may 
>> also be a participant in a Working Group or may submit a comment to 
>> the Working Group as part of public review.  Such comments should not 
>> be treated differently just because the commenter has another formal role.
> 
> Agreed
> 
>> 7.6 W3C Recommendation, first sentence:
>>
>>   "/+The decision to advance a document to Recommendation is a
>>
>> [http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/acreview.html#def-w3c-deci
>> sion W3C decision].+/  In addition to meeting ..."
>>
>> This formalism from the current Process section 7.4.5 binds to the 
>> formal definition of AC Review, appeal, etc.
> 
> Agreed
> 
>> 7.8 Publishing a Working Group or Interest Group Note, final sentence:
>>
>>   "Working Group Notes/-, only for W3C Recommendations-/."
>>
>> This additional statement is unnecessary here and it creates the risk 
>> of future conflict if the Patent Policy is revised to cover other things.
> 
> Indeed. Agreed.
> 
> cheers
> 
>> -Ralph
>>
>> On 2/20/2014 5:55 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> there is another draft dated 20 February. The only change is to add 
>>> an explicit requirement for the director to announce the publication 
>>> of a revised Candidate Recommendation.
>>>
>>> As far as I know there are no outstanding comments or issues, so I 
>>> hope we will resolve to present this draft to the AB as our 
>>> recommendation for a new Chapter 7.
>>>
>>> The draft is https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/7b98193bc9d9/tr.html
>>> and the changelog is at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> Chaals
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
>        chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
>

Received on Monday, 3 March 2014 19:43:39 UTC