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

2014 Process: WD -> CR difficulties

From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 13:01:42 +0000
To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
CC: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D051B36D.1287D%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Process folk:

TTWG has chosen to adopt the 2014 process for all its recommendation track
products in development. I understand that we're about to go through this
process first of all working groups.

Recent Experience

We recently wanted to transition one document to CR, but were advised that
the requirements for getting to CR are the same as they were for exiting
LC previously; yet without an LC we didn't have a clearly defined
mechanism for meeting those requirements. Specifically the need to
demonstrate wide review seemed to be vague, and triggered a "we aren't
sure what view the Director will take" response from staff, which, while
true, wasn't ideal for them or us.

We chose to issue a new WD and put out as big a call for review as
possible. But there's been quite a bit of debate about how the process
could assist here.

What in the process caused the problem?

The 2014 process has streamlined the LC -> CR -> LC -> CR -> ... process
to make it quicker and less painful by removing LC, which is great, but
seems not not to have fully addressed WD -> CR.

Previously, WD -> LC -> CR was a set of clearly defined (or at least well
understood) steps that were each manageable.

Now, WD -> CR is a much bigger step; the requirements for entering CR
haven't changed but the opportunity for meeting those requirements has
been elided.

What can be done to mitigate the problem?

If we want to keep the benefits of the current process then it would be a
good idea to clarify exactly what is needed to go from WD to CR and how it
can be achieved.

Here are a couple of non-mutually-incompatible suggestions to mitigate
this from being a more widespread problem across other groups, hopefully
without adding significant delay or complexity:

	1. Offer the possibility (rather than a requirement) of a "Last" label
for a Working Draft, which is still a WD, but one that groups wish to
signal is intended for transition to CR next.

	2. Create an independent "wide review" process step that may be applied
to any document (in WD or CR) for use whenever wide review may be
required; recommend that this is executed at least once on at least one WD
prior to requesting transition to CR, and that if there's significant
change between the wide review and the version that's being transitioned
to CR then continued review needs to be demonstrated.

Have we missed anything?

Is there anything in the process that we should have used to alleviate
this problem, but maybe missed?
Are there other suggestions for how to make WD -> CR as pain-free as

Kind regards,


Co-chair, TTWG

On 01/10/2014 13:31, "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org> wrote:

>On Oct 1, 2014, at 7:29 AM, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote:
>>>> If we don't ask the public/W3C groups/External group to review the
>>>>latest WD version (the one before entering CR) , I don't see how the
>>>>director will be satisfied with a review done on former WD documents
>>>>which are obsolete.
>>> I think a heads up to the chairs is a fine idea. But the AB wanted to
>>>leave groups greater freedom in how they get review.
>> Your response does not respond to the above issue,it is not a matter
>>about heads up to the chairs, the issue is about the WD version that
>>needs to get wide review on. Would a former review on a obsolete version
>>satisfy the Director ?
>I do not know for all possible cases. Suppose you published a draft "LC -
>1" that was mostly stable and got lots of review, then did an update and
>got review from someone new on the changes. Would that satisfy the
>Director? My guess is yes.
>Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs

>Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447

Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2014 13:02:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:21 UTC