- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 14:46:53 -0400
- To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
- CC: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Message-ID: <543ACC9D.7000205@w3.org>
[adding Steve and Chaals] On 10/9/2014 3:35 PM, Wayne Carr wrote: > > On 2014-10-09 12:02, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: >> >> It would be great to start harvesting from this set of threads some >> concrete suggestions for changing the formal W3C process and informal >> practices to address some of acknowledged problems. Just to start >> things off: >> >> 1.Errata - Chairs and the team should more strongly encourage WGs to >> identify outright errors and fix them quickly, ideally inline in the >> published document but at least in an errata document. Jeff’s blog >> <http://www.w3.org/blog/2014/10/decision-by-consensus-or-by-informed-editor-which-is-better/> >> acknowledges that W3C can learn from WHATWG on this, and we need to >> make it happen. >> > > +1 We should figure out how to make this easy to do. Yes, this is Issue-141 [1]. Let's hope that the task force takes this up quickly. Thanks David S. for the thoughts. Anyone have other ideas? [1] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/141 > >> 2.Published drafts of W3C specs should have sections annotated with >> information about how stable, widely accepted, widely implemented, >> and proven in practice the feature as defined in the spec is. It >> might be a good idea to flesh that list/taxonomy out and make some >> concrete suggestions for the process or practice. >> > > +1 I think there's often agreement this is a good idea. It would be a > good practice for WGs to adopt. It could also be something WG > Charters require. Both of the first 2 are things we should let slip. I had thought we had an open issue to address this, but I cannot find it. Does anyone recall where that went? > >> 3.We could revisit the very thorny question of how to ensure that >> owners of specs and products that depend on a W3C spec actually >> review changes early in the process before changes are set in stone. >> Hixie’s proposal that specs and dependencies be changed in lockstep >> is interesting but could not possibly scale up to include all >> stakeholders at Web scale. And as Daniel Glazman has pointed out, >> this simply doesn’t work for many enterprises who want to control the >> rhythm of their own infrastructure and app updates themselves. But >> I’m sure we can do better than we do now. >> >> 4.Jeff’s blog mentioned that Community Groups – which do not require >> broad consensus to proceed, but do not produce “standards” – are a >> way to develop specs more quickly. Indeed, the whole point of the >> blog was to muse on the right balance between strong editors (that >> some CGs have) driving “lazy consensus” >> <http://openoffice.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html> (to >> adopt the Apache term) and traditional W3C “broad consensus.” Should >> we discuss how CGs and WGs fit together in the W3C culture and >> process, continue to let them evolve independently from the process >> doc and team’s oversight, more strongly encourage specs to be >> incubated in CGs before a WG is chartered to standardize them, or what? >> > > Moving to incubating specs in CGs before a WG can result in developing > initial specs without broad consensus, and maybe with no consensus at > all - just what a Chair decides. You can wind up with key decisions > made where all participants are not treated equally and by the time it > gets to a WG it could be in implementation and difficult to shift > course. An alternative to that is to have some basic rules in CGs > through use of a Charter. There is a Charter template with rules like > that at: http://www.w3.org/community/about/ on the right Charter > Templates which leads to > http://www.w3.org/community/council/wiki/Templates/CG_Charter . There > are 2 CG/BGs in the process of very quickly moving to WGs with specs > where earlier versions of that Charter template were used. (Second > Screen Presentation CG <http://www.w3.org/community/webscreens/> and > Automotive and Web Platform BG > <http://www.w3.org/community/autowebplatform/> ). Requiring basic > fairness in those groups didn't slow them down at all. They can make > decisions in a very lightweight way, but there are process rules in > place to deal with problems if they arise. I think that Wayne is correct in his analysis. Perhaps instead of a formal change in the process we need a Best Practices document which would advice how CGs could work in a way that facilitates moving to the REC track. > > >> I don’t think this is an exhaustive list, just a few that seem to >> come up over and over in the WHATWG / W3C meta-thread. >> >> *From:*Chris Wilson [mailto:cwilso@google.com] >> *Sent:* Thursday, October 9, 2014 10:55 AM >> *To:* Ian Hickson >> *Cc:* David (Standards) Singer; Tim Berners-Lee; public-w3process >> *Subject:* Re: Normative references and stable documents >> >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch >> <mailto:ian@hixie.ch>> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, Chris Wilson wrote: >> > That's an unrealistic expectation of the entire content of the >> world >> > pivoting around the current spec, rather than the state of the >> spec when >> > the content was developed. >> >> If it's not realistic to expect all the people referencing the >> spec to >> update, then *don't change the spec*. >> >> Also not realistic. People have been writing production code on >> WebRTC for some time now, despite it being "unstable" in practical >> terms. Paving a long-existing cowpath is one thing. Building a >> superhighway on a pathway you just blazed is another. This all comes >> down to "there are different levels of baked, and more baked must >> equal more stable and a bigger event to change." >> >> If it's not realistic to expect one to update one's spec when >> specs one >> references change, then one should not be writing specs. Writing >> specs is >> like writing software. The point at which you stop maintaining it >> is the >> point at which it dies. >> >> As a spec editor myself, I'm not worried about editing the spec. >> Deploying browsers, and far more importantly deploying web properties >> that rely on those browsers' behaviors at certain points in time, are >> far harder. >> >> > reaching stability in a spec, or even large portions of a spec, >> creates >> > important inflection points in implementation. >> >> It's certainly true that a spec can have layers where one set of >> features >> are "v1" and another are "v2" -- the HTML spec does this a lot, for >> instance, I even use that terminology internally to track when to >> add new >> features -- but that has nothing to do with publishing snapshots, >> and it >> isn't what the W3C is doing anyway. >> >> I disagree that this isn't what the W3C has done in the past. >> >> "HTML5" mixes long-stable stuff with >> highly immature unimplemented stuff (and has lots of stuff that's >> been >> fixed for months on the WHATWG side, making it even less "stable" >> than the >> WHATWG living standard equivalent), for example. >> >> Yes, there are a lot of things mixed in to HTML5, some long-stable >> and some immature. I don't think the living standard approach makes >> that better, I think it makes it worse. >> >> > This isn't just a reflection of spec commits; it's spec commits and >> > stability of what's in the document, and without strong stability >> > indicators, it's pointless. >> >> Yeah. The WHATWG HTML spec had explicit markers per-section for a >> while >> indicating how stable each part was. Now that pretty much >> everything in >> the spec is stable, I've taken those out in favour of localised >> warnings >> where things are known to be in flux. But again, this has nothing >> to do >> with snapshots for patent purposes or the way the W3C is doing them. >> >> I'm confused, didn't you just say HTML5 is a mix of long-stable and >> highly immature things? >> >> One could imagine having multiple "views" of the spec, with newer >> features >> omitted from some. In practice this isn't viable because when you >> add new >> features you often have to make pretty invasive changes to the >> core model, >> and so maintaining multiple branches becomes hellish. (I >> experienced this >> when I was editing both the WHATWG and W3C versions of the specs.) >> >> Yes, which is why I think stable versioning, with side specs for >> separable longer-term efforts and integration when the features are >> stabilizing and getting deployed across browsers, is the right way to >> go. Similar, say, to Chrome's release staging. :) >> >> > Sooner or later, we'll reach a stable "v1" inflection point >> around Web >> > Audio, and I'd expect implementers to use that as a bar - but >> additional >> > features will be added, and changes will be made, and of course >> I'd want >> > implementers (and developers, for that matter) in the future >> looking at >> > that most of the time. >> >> Why "most"? When would you ever want them implementing or using >> the old, >> now known-to-be-wrong, stuff? >> >> When the new feature set is not stable, or if that new feature set is >> not implemented across browsers, or when changes to old behavior is >> not implemented and deployed across browsers. >> >
Received on Sunday, 12 October 2014 18:47:04 UTC