Re: Agenda Process Document Task Force 27 January 2015

> On Jan 28, 2015, at 1:45 , Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2015-01-26 23:53, David Singer wrote:
>> apologies for this week; at a 3GPP meeting.  I will try to be on IRC but cannot promise
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 5.      ISSUE-100: Should it be possible to publish a pr before a call for exclusion ends 
>>> 
>>> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/100
>> I think at least this should be unusual and a step taken only after explicit consideration. If it’s formally permitted, we need to say in the process how the nasty case is handled (an exclusion is received after PR publication).
> 
> I don't see why there's an issue with publishing the PR.  The problem would be having the Director's decision happen before an exclusion (and PAG's outcome). 

Really?  If an exclusion happens at any time prior to PR publication, we can hold the train in its tracks while we look at the exclusion.

But imagine, we publish the PR, other organizations refer to it, implementations happen, authors win prizes…and then an exclusion happens.  Can we rescind the PR advancement and revert (to what?).  We put a note in it saying “Oops, it’s possible that this spec. has a licensing issue”?

> 
> It now says "should be at least 10 days after the end of the last Exclusion Opportunity".    If a new version of a spec is say a paragraph long new feature which had been discussed widely, it could be that FPWD and CR happen at the same time (which seems reasonable for something simple).  If I'm doing my arithmetic correctly.  It's 30 day CR review and 28 AC Review which could put the end of the AC Review at about 58 days and the end of the Exclusion Opportunity at 150 days.  So the AC Review could have ended 90 days before the Exclusion Opportunity.  
> 
> Why not: "must be at least 7 days after the end of the last Exclusion Opportunity" to avoid the above and add something like "If an exclusion occurs, the AC Review is extended until at least 7 days after the Director announces how the exclusion was handled." to handle what David is asking for.
> 
> extension rather than starting over to prevent someone disclosing random and causing an additional 28 day delay after the delay in investigating it.
> 

It’s not delays I worry about.  It’s that PR advancement, and publication, are often thought of as irreversible.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2015 11:10:57 UTC