Re: Issue-152 ACTION REQUIRED: Call for Consensus: Proposed Process Change Regarding Publishing Edited Recommendations

+1

On 2015-04-07 12:38, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
> +1
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Stephen Zilles <mailto:szilles@adobe.com>
> Sent: ‎4/‎7/‎2015 12:23 PM
> To: public-w3process@w3.org <mailto:public-w3process@w3.org>
> Subject: Issue-152 ACTION REQUIRED: Call for Consensus: Proposed 
> Process  Change Regarding Publishing Edited Recommendations
>
> This is a Call for Consensus to update the Process 2015 Draft with a 
> change to Section 7.7.2, the second paragraph after the Issue, 
> referring to Editorial Changes. (This paragraph specifies the 
> requirements for publishing an Edited Recommendations that only has 
> editorial changes.)
>
> Responses to this call are due by Close of Business on 12 April 2015 
> (one week). Please send a reply to this message (I agree, I disagree, 
> I abstain) to register your opinion. The CG rules do NOT assume that a 
> lack of reply is agreement with the proposal. (See
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jun/0160.html
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jun/0163.html )
>
> If you wish to discuss the proposed change, please create a new thread 
> for that discussion (so that “votes” are easily separated from 
> “discussion”).
>
> The proposed change
>
> The existing Draft Process 2015 text is,
>
> “Editorial changes to a Recommendation require no technical review of 
> the proposed changes. A Working Group may request publication of a 
> Proposed Recommendation or W3C may publish a Proposed Recommendation 
> to make this class of change without passing through earlier maturity 
> levels. Such publications may be called a Proposed Edited Recommendation.”
>
> The proposed replacement text is,
>
> “Editorial changes to a Recommendation require no technical review of 
> the proposed changes. A Working Group, provided there are no “No” 
> votes in the resolution to publish, may request publication of an 
> Edited Recommendation to make this class of change without passing 
> through earlier maturity levels. If there are any “No” votes, the 
> Working group must follow the process, below, for Substantive Changes”
>
> Note: The following paragraph, for Substantive Changes, says, “To make 
> corrections to a Recommendation that produce substantive changes but 
> do not add new features, a Working Group may request publication of a 
> Candidate Recommendation, without passing through earlier maturity 
> levels.”
>
> Rationale
>
> The main concern in this discussion of this issue has been whether one 
> can tell whether a given change is Editorial or Substantial. The is a 
> proposal
>
> to clean up the definition of Editorial Change, but the decision is 
> still a judgement call. It has been observed that the best people to 
> make this call are the participants in the Working Group making the 
> change.
>
> Secondly, it has been noted that changes thought to be Editorial 
> could, inadvertently, introduce IPR infringement. But, the only 
> organizations that would have a licensing commitment are those that 
> are participants in the Working Group.
>
> Therefore, if the Working Group assesses that the changes are 
> Editorial and votes to publish without any “No” votes, then the 
> audience best able to make the two above assessments has spoken and 
> any further review adds additional publication delay without adding 
> any clear benefit.
>
> If any organization (or invited expert) votes “No”, then there is 
> doubt about the changes being purely editorial and/or not impacting 
> IPR. In this case, a CR, that triggers a “Call for Exclusions”, and a 
> PR, giving AC Review, is appropriate.
>
> Steve Zilles
>
> Chair, Process Document Task Force
>