Re: Review comments on 3 March 2015 Process Editor's draft

On 2015-03-15 21:56, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
> Wayne,
>
> Thank you for your careful review of the document. As I see it, a 
> number of your comments (1-4 and 8) are editorial and should be easy 
> to fix. There as some, however, that bear discussion prior to agreeing 
> on a fix. My comments on these are inline below.
>
thanks!

> Steve Z
>
> *From:*Wayne Carr [mailto:wayne.carr@linux.intel.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, March 06, 2015 4:35 PM
> *To:* Charles McCathieNevile
> *Cc:* W3C Process Community Group
> *Subject:* 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 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#ACCommunication>), 
> the Director announces thedevelopment of a proposal for one or more 
> new 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#ActivityDevelopment>or 
> Interest Group orWorking Group charter 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#WGCharterDevelopment>, 
> depending on the breadth of the topic of interest."
>
> 2. Section 2.2 The Team. "assessingconsensus 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#def-Consensus>within 
> W3C for architectural choices, publication oftechnical reports 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#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/
>
> */[SZ] Another way to say this is: s/general support/support or 
> concerns//*
>
> */I suspect that there will be agreement to make a change, but we need 
> to decide which change./*
>
> 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.
>
> */[SZ] The AB at is meeting on 12 February is summarized as follows/*
>
> 14. Charter Expiration [Resolution on advice from AB]
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> The Advisory Board returned to its discussion of out-of-charter groups 
> and
>
> the mechanisms W3M proposed to adopt, and took the following resolution:
>
> 1. Charter expiration sync to quarter boundaries
>
> 2. Each quarter the Team looks at the charters expiring in the current 
> and
>
> next quarters
>
> 3. Once a charter expires, the Group is restrained from publishing 
> after a
>
> 1 week grace period
>
> 4. Director extensions should be used sparingly
>
> 5. Members should not be permitted to join a WG whose charter has expired
>
> */This is, of course, advice to the Team, but it does cover many of 
> the concerns you raise. Should these “rules” become part of the 
> Process? Perhaps we should wait to see how this change works in 
> practice. There have been a number of cases where revising the charter 
> for an existing group seems to take an awfully long time./*
>

We only have once a year to change the Charter, so waiting means another 
year.

This isn't a hypothetical situation - the NFC WG and SysApps WG charters 
expired 4 and 5 months ago.  An expired WG that drifts on month after 
month traps any abandoned specs in it.  If the WG closed, someone could 
ask that the specs be moved to a CG (for the Director and AC to 
decide).  Without it closing, the specs just sit there.   It's not clear 
then even if Members should quit the WG, since they may then lose the 
ability to participate in decisions the expired WG continues to make - 
like whether  to abandon specs or to close.

If a WG has a good reason that it needs more time, the Director can very 
easily give it an extension, which can be done very quickly. So, why 
does a WG ever need to be able to continue after expiration?  Why 
wouldn't the Director simply extend the WG?  An extended WG clearly 
operates under the patent policy.  Less clear what happens when a WG 
without an active Charter publishes TRs and has exclusion periods, or 
has the notion of quitting a WG that isn't under Charter.

Benefits of extending the WG rather than allowing unchartered WGs to 
operate include: 1) patent licensing obligations are clear for chartered 
WGs, but not for WGs with expired charters; 2) the AC can appeal a 
Charter extension, but can do nothing at all when W3C management chooses 
to operate a WG without a Charter.

I think we should change the Process now.  If the AC or Director don't 
agree they can strike that change as part of the AC/Director approval 
for the new Process.

On the proposed team rules:
I don't think we should formalize a WG publishing without a valid 
Charter.  Do they have an exclusion period for publications without a 
valid Charter?  It seems stating those are the rules is a choice to 
divorce the patent policy from active Charters in some undefined way 
that we probably don't want to get into.   I wouldn't say "extensions 
should be used sparingly."  They're better than running an unchartered 
WG.  Extentions should be limited to no more than 3 months after the 
initial duration of the Charter, so they don't get extended for years.  
If something is going on where they can't even get a 1 year charter 
identical to the previous one passed to give them more time, than the WG 
is in trouble.  So I'd change that to a fixed time limit for total 
duration of extensions.

>
> 7. skipping errata, separate post on that*/[SZ] /* I will comment on 
> that message separately.
>
> 8. Section 8. "has exercised the role of assessing consensus after 
> anAdvisory Committee review 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#ACReview>of 
> anCharter Proposal 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#CharterReview>, 
> after aCall for Review of a Proposed Recommendation 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#cfr>, after 
> aCall for Review of a Proposed Recommendation 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#cfr-edited>, 
> after aProposal to Rescind a W3C Recommendation 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#proposed-rescinded-rec>, 
> and after aProposed Process Document 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#GAProcess>review."
>
> s/an Charter Proposal/a Charter Proposal/
>
> "after aCall for Review of a Proposed Recommendation 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#cfr>" 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.
>
> */[SZ] I wonder if the definition of “dissent” is too strong in the AC 
> Review case. Based on my experience with other standards 
> organizations, I would have originally interpreted the term as meaning 
> having voted “no” on the AC Review, but the W3C definition requires a 
> Formal Objection in the AC Review. That does mean that frivolous 
> appeals are less likely. If the weaker definition of “dissent” is 
> used, then one can interpret the Director not approving a Proposed 
> Recommendation that you voted “yes” on as “dissent”; you voted in 
> opposition to the decision. (I am not proposing changing the 
> definition of “dissent” in section 3.3 for most groups because their 
> consensus is not assessed by the Director.) Perhaps, if people are OK 
> with the weaker notion of “dissent” for the appeals to AC Review 
> decisions, then the final phrase could be, “Advisory Committee 
> representatives MAY only appeal when /**/they have voted in opposition 
> to the announced decision./**/”/*
>
> There is also the appeal of a decision to relicense an abandoned, 
> unfinished specification 
> http://www.w3.org/2014/12/relicense.html#decision 
> <http://www.w3.org/2014/12/relicense.html> -- that should be added to 
> the list of appeals.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>