Review comments on 3 March 2015 Process Editor's draft

Review comments on 3 March 2015 Process Editor's draft

1. Introduction -- probably should be one or more ... charters. The link 
for "new" is to something about activities.  In the introduction "When 
there is enough interest in a topic (e.g., after a successful Workshop 
and/or discussion on anAdvisory Committee mailing list 
<>), the 
Director announces thedevelopment of a proposal for one or more new 
Interest Group orWorking Group charter 
depending on the breadth of the topic of interest."

2. Section 2.2 The Team. "assessingconsensus 
W3C for architectural choices, publication oftechnical reports 
<>, and new 
activities;"  It used to be "Activities", but that's a place where 
making it lower case doesn't work.  Probably should be "Groups" rather 
than "activities".

3. Section 2.5.2 "NOT REQUIRED" instead of "not required"

4. section 6.2.1 "MAY" instead of "may"

5. Section 6.2.2 "Advisory Committee representatives/may/express their 
general support on theAdvisory Committee discussion 
list<#ACCommunication>." sounds like they can only approve :)  s/general 
support/opinion of the proposal/

6. Section 6.2.5 on Charter extension.  "The announcement/must/indicate 
the newduration, which must not exceed the duration of the Activity to 
which the group belongs.duration."   WGs and IGs should not be able to 
continue indefinitely without AC having a chance to decide if it still 
makes sense, even if the charter doesn't change.  Charter extensions 
should be to avoid wasting time on a review when a WG is near completion 
or if an attempt at rechartering failed or was delayed by forces outside 
the WG, but not to indefinitely continue work without AC review.  That 
should be no more than 3 months after the expiration date on the last 
Charter that was approved by the AC.  If this isn't done, then Charters 
should be required to list the Date they were approved through the AC 
review process and the original expiration date. It is time consuming 
now to try to figure out what Charters were extended and for how long.  
For instance, what is the WG with the longest duration since approval 
thorough AC Review?  Is it common to have total extensions beyond say 6 
months?  It doesn't seem easy to figure that out.

7. skipping errata, separate post on that

8. Section 8. "has exercised the role of assessing consensus after 
anAdvisory Committee review 
anCharter Proposal 
after aCall for Review of a Proposed Recommendation 
<>, after aCall 
for Review of a Proposed Recommendation 
after aProposal to Rescind a W3C Recommendation 
and after aProposed Process Document 

s/an Charter Proposal/a Charter Proposal/

"after aCall for Review of a Proposed Recommendation 
<>" appears 
twice.  second one is probably proposed edited recommendation.

9. Section 8.2 appeals by AC.

"When Advisory Committee review immediately precedes a decision, 
Advisory Committee representatives/may/only appeal when there 
isdissent<#def-Dissent>." That's true only when the Director approves 
some proposal.  If there are no Formal Objections in the AC and the 
Director rejects the proposal, obviously we can appeal that one too.   
The requirement that there be a dissent is intended to mean if there are 
no formal objections, the AC can't appeal the Director approving it.  It 
doesn't mean, the AC can't appeal the Director rejecting it.

There is also the appeal of a decision to relicense an abandoned, 
unfinished specification 
<> -- that should be added to 
the list of appeals.

Received on Saturday, 7 March 2015 00:35:44 UTC