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

RE: Process chapter 7 draft...

From: Steve Zilles <steve@zilles.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 08:05:40 -0800
To: "'Charles McCathie Nevile'" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "'W3C Advisory Board'" <ab@w3.org>
Cc: <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001e01cf37c3$b3e82680$1bb87380$@zilles.org>
This is an admirable document. Thank you for all the effort you put into creating a simpler, clearer, more flexible process.

I have a few suggested fixes, mostly editorial, I hope.

Section 7.2.2, penultimate paragraph
/whereas for later stages/whereas for maturity levels beyond Working Draft/
[the term "later stages" is undefined and unnecessary.]
Also put a comma after "fairly mechanical" and change the following comma (after "automatic") to a semicolon.

Section 7.4, Possible next steps
I thought we agreed to drop the terminology, "revised Candidate Recommendation" and to use "re-publish  as a Candidate Recommendation" to avoid creating a new "maturity level"

Section 7.4.1, final paragraph
/the publication of a revised Candidate Recommendation/the re-publication of the Candidate Recommendation/

Section 7.5, under "a Working Group"
Bullets 3 and 4 exclude comments by "Advisory Committee representatives" without pointing to the "dissent" bullets in section 7.6 which is where such comments are handled. I suggest a forward reference to this section, such as "Advisory Committee representative issues are handled in section 7.6."

Section 7.5, "a Working Group", bullet 5
/in the Candidate Recommendation document as "at risk"/in the Candidate Recommendation documented as "at risk" prior to publication as a Proposed Recommendation/
[to resolve the implication that "at risk" features can be dropped from a PR.]

Section 7.6, bullet 3
/In this case,/In the case of unsatisfied dissent,/
[to make it clear that you cannot appeal if your dissent is satisfactorily resolved.]
The same change should be made in the final paragraph of 7.9 as well.

Section 7.7.2, first bullet of 3rd paragraph
/identifying it as the basis for a Request for Recommendation/identifying it as a Proposed Edited Recommendation/
[I believe that we dropped the "Request for Recommendation" label, but I am not sure what should replace it here. The original process distinguished the PER because it does not trigger a new Exclusion Call, as far as I know. But adding PER creates another "maturity level" (and another state in the diagram).]

Section 7.7.2, bullet 3
/Should address all errata./Should address all errata known at the time of the request./

Section 7.8, paragraph 2
/In order to publish a Note/In order to publish a Note,/ 
[add comma]

Steve Z

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru] 
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 10:29 AM
To: W3C Advisory Board
Subject: Process chapter 7 draft...


please note that the current draft, which you should consider is https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/7b98193bc9d9/tr.html

At 8.30 in the morning I believe Jeff will be assuming you have read it if you plan to participate in the discussion, and so I will also make that assumption. It's about 4500 words - or around 2/3 the current version.

As far as I can tell, the Task Force has agreed to propose this draft to the AB as suitable to offer to the AC (perhaps for a new last call - in any event the discussion of how we implement the shift from one process version to another is tangential to the content of this chapter).

I expect to produce another draft tonight, with half a dozen minor (a few letters or words) editorial changes based on Ralph's recent review, as per http://www.w3.org/mid/op.xb5q9sd8y3oazb@chaals.local assuming there are no objections to them from the task force.

You can see changes by following the changeset links at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/ (They show HTML lines added/removed, but it's easy enough to read the differences even if your only understanding of HTML is "there is the text, and funny things between pointy brackets that do the magic" :) ).



Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2014 16:06:57 UTC

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