Re: w3process-ISSUE-126 (autoWDpublish): Automatic WD publishing tool may change the W3C center of gravity around WGs [Process Document]

[ Cc PLH ]

On 9/10/14 5:47 AM, Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker 
wrote:
> w3process-ISSUE-126 (autoWDpublish): Automatic WD publishing tool may change the W3C center of gravity around WGs [Process Document]
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/126
>
> Raised by: Daniel Glazman
> On product: Process Document
>
> During the CSS WG ftf 10-sep-2014, plh presented the new proposed tool allowing an editor to publish a WD with one-click.

Daniel - are you talking about <http://www.w3.org/2014/08/pubworkflow.html>?

> A side effect of that tool is that it allows to turn the editor into a decider while the current situation always sets the WG as the decider to publish. It basically allows to "officialize" Editor's Draft into the Process as WDs, the editor potentially having the ability granted by WG to publish when he wants, as often he wants.
>
> I think this changes the center of gravity of the W3C, where WGs are the elementary units behind a publication. I understand the tool intends to drastically reduce the time between a decision to publish and the actual publication but I think a undesirable side-effect is the possibility to get rid of WG's approval to publish.
>
> I would like, as a Member AC-Rep, the W3C and AB to explain what are the intended usage limits of that tool. Is the expectation that editors can commit to WD things that already hold a post-review WG resolution or consensus, and be not allowed to commit w/o WG resolution or consensus? In that case, the tool becomes extremely useful AND retains the WG authority. If a WG can decide, once for all, to let an editor publish a WD when he wants (and section 7.3.2 of Process seems to allow it), then I think we have a problem: it de facto creates two classes of WD, the ones published by the editor under his sole authority, the ones holding a consensus/resolution from the WG. One of the new Process's goals being simplication and removal of one step from the REC track, this does the contrary, de facto adding one new step and status to the REC track. I think a clarification is needed. I even think some clear boundaries keeping WGs in charge are needed, and that probably implies changes in section 7.3.2.

Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2014 11:03:23 UTC