Re: 2014 Process: WD -> CR difficulties

> hat's not a process then, it's a set of what some call "stage gates" 
> with verification steps. The document should be renamed 

That's an interesting point, although I'm not sure there would be a net decrease in confusion if we renamed the "process" document.  

The "aha" moment for me in the long AB discussions around making  WGs more agile was when someone (Ian Jacobs maybe) made the analogy with the declarative vs procedural/imperative meta-discussion in computer science. For example http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1784664/what-is-the-difference-between-declarative-and-imperative-programming . Rather than trying to devise an algorithm that simultaneously a) ensures that relevant stakeholders have had a chance to review and comment on a spec; b) makes the W3C Process less opaque to non-specialists; c) allows WGs to be more agile.... it made sense to specify what a good result looks like and let WG figure out how to parallelize the steps and optimize the checks in a way that works for their community.

 Perhaps it is a misnomer to call a declarative definition of what a good result looks like a "process", I believe it really is the result we are interested in here, not certification that all the hoops were jumped through. The 2014 Process document doesn't go as far as it could in the "declarative" direction, but FWIW I would prefer to move it more in that direction than to add back "imperative" steps, whatever we end up calling the document itself.
________________________________________
From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2014 1:43 AM
To: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH); Wayne Carr; Arthur Barstow; public-w3process
Subject: Re: 2014 Process: WD -> CR difficulties

On 02/10/2014 17:51, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)"
<Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:

>We can make the list public, but we can't make the necessary people
>subscribe to the list.
>
>The AB and/or the Process CG discussed this in some depth while
>deliberating the 2014 process.  My recollection of the consensus was that
>-- consistent with the spirit of the new process philosophy -- the
>Process Document doesn't describe a machine that you crank to put out
>Recommendations, it describes *what*criteria a spec must pass to become a
>Recommendation.  *How* that happens can be optimized by specific WGs and
>Chairs to work in the actual environment they live in.

That's not a process then, it's a set of what some call "stage gates" with
verification steps. The document should be renamed to avoid creating
misleading expectations and make obvious the change in philosophy.

Google "define: process"

        process
        noun

        1. a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular
end.



>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wayne Carr [mailto:wayne.carr@linux.intel.com]
>Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2014 9:43 AM
>To: Arthur Barstow; public-w3process
>Cc: Nigel Megitt
>Subject: Re: 2014 Process: WD -> CR difficulties
>
>
>On 2014-10-02 04:30, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> On 10/1/14 3:21 PM, Wayne Carr wrote:
>>> There could be a Call for Review public mail list.
>>
>> Agree [and it might even be useful if the `right` people subscribe ;-)].
>>
>> In case you did not know, the [chairs] list is already used to: 1)
>> make FPWD transition requests [rarely do these fail]; 2) announce LC
>> publications + explicit  RfC from specific group(s); 3) make CR
>> transition requests. It would be helpful (vis-à-vis toward getting
>> early and wide review) if all three of these (plus ProcDoc-2014 now
>> effectively mandates a "RfC for pre-CRs") were announced on a Public
>> list.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the chairs list is Member-confidential and I suspect
>> subscriber membership is controlled by consortium staff (i.e. I don't
>> think it is an  auto-subscribe-able list by Joe Public). I would be
>> delighted if everything on that list was automagically forwarded to a
>> Public list. However, I suspect typical Public vs. Member
>> confidentiality stop energy would prevent that :-(.
>
>Can W3C staff just make this list?
>public-wg-call-for-review@w3.org or public-wg-rfc@w3c.org
>
>- posts should only be from WG Chairs and W3C Staff
>- notices:
>    + Staff sends announcements at: transition requests, "last call"
>publications - FPWD and the CRs that have substantive changes or Last
>Call (under the old process), notice that work is underway on a charter
>    + WG Chairs send RfC on anything the WG would like feedback on or
>that they would like to tell the public.  e.g. want review on a
>particular section, notice that a section is considered stable
>
>This could just be done and WGs use it as they see fit and the process
>could later mandate it (if that was wanted).  In the meantime, it would
>be something WGs and W3C staff could use as a way of asking for reviews
>or making general announcements on spec development.
>
>>
>> (WRT `the tools will save us`, if WG charter deliverables included
>> some type of "interestedGroup" property, then it seems like at least
>> some notifications could be automated.)
>>
>> -AB
>>
>> [chairs] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 15:32:49 UTC