Re: [Issue-101] Replacement for the other of the diagrams in the Process document

On 10/8/2015 2:50 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
> *From:*Jeff Jaffe [mailto:jeff@w3.org]
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 08, 2015 11:08 AM
> *To:* Wayne Carr; Stephen Zilles; public-w3process@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Issue-101] Replacement for the other of the diagrams 
> in the Process document
>
> On 10/8/2015 1:55 PM, Wayne Carr wrote:
>
>     On 2015-10-06 21:18, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>
>         On 10/6/2015 11:50 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
>             See below
>
>             *From:*Jeff Jaffe [mailto:jeff@w3.org]
>             *Sent:* Tuesday, October 06, 2015 6:20 PM
>             *To:* Stephen Zilles; public-w3process@w3.org
>             <mailto:public-w3process@w3.org>
>             *Subject:* Re: [Issue-101] Replacement for the other of
>             the diagrams in the Process document
>
>             Steve,
>
>             In CR, if there are substantial changes we stay in CR; but
>             if there are very substantial changes we go back to WD.
>
>             Have we defined the difference between substantial changes
>             and very substantial changes?
>
>             */[SZ] No, IMO it is up to the WG to decide whether the
>             changes would take a document out of CR. The most obvious
>             reason would be that there need to be major implementation
>             changes and, therefore, the document is not really ready
>             for implementation (the anachronistic definition of CR)
>             anymore. If the changes involve implementation tweeks and
>             the participants agree that they should be made, then
>             those are substantive, but not “very substantive”. If you
>             think putting in some text like that would be useful, it
>             could be proposed/*
>
>
>         I wasn't making a proposal.  I was just trying to make sense
>         of the terms in the proposed diagram.  Your explanation
>         doesn't make it clear enough (at least for me).
>
>
>     It's defined in the process doc.  I think the wording in the
>     diagram is to refer to:
>
>     http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#substantive-change
>     It is 3 *Corrections that do not add new features*and 4 *New
>     features*.
>
>     Here's the section that says what happens in those cases PR for 3
>     and FPWD for 4.
>     http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#revised-rec
>
>
> I know that substantive change is defined in the process document.  
> That wasn't my question.
>
> The diagram differentiates between substantive change and very 
> substantive change.  I don't see any such definition in the process 
> document.
>
> Perhaps you are arguing that substantive change is "3 Corrections" and 
> very substantive is "4 New features".  If that is the intent, I would 
> prefer to use that language in the diagram.
>
> *//*
>
> */[SZ] Two points:/*
>
> */1./**/The goal, posited by David Singer, was to have the labels on 
> the arrow indicate the trigger condition for the transition. For the 
> transition from PR back to CR, the trigger is “substantive change” I 
> do not believe that we should change that label./*
>
> */2./**/For the transition from CR back to WD, I tried to create a 
> label which would reflect a trigger because the Process Document only 
> says that “Return to Working Draft” is a possible next step for a CR, 
> but does not give any “trigger” for that step to be taken. Given that 
> observation, perhaps the label should be , “Substantive Change and 
> Working Group Decision”, implying that it is up to the WG to decide 
> whether the document should go back to WD. /*
>

This makes sense to me.

> */I do not see a requirement to go back to WD if new features are 
> added. There is such a requirement for Edited Recommendations, but not 
> for CR. Perhaps there should be such a requirement./*
>
> *//*
>
>
>
>
>
> Maybe "feature modifications" or "feature tweaks" instead of 
> substantive and "new features" instead of very substantive for the 
> diagram ?
>
>
>
>
>
> */Steve Z/*
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
> On 10/5/2015 10:17 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
>     A proposed, revised replacement for diagram in sections 6.7 of the 2015 Process Document
>
>        http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#revised-rec
>
>     is attached.
>
>       
>
>     Comments are welcome
>
>       
>
>     Steve Z
>