Re: Final Draft intro to Process 2016 Document to be sent to

On 8/2/2016 2:41 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
> All,
>
> This is a final draft that incorporates the changes suggested by Judy 
> Zhu, updates the copied 5.2.6 text to be from the current (2 Aug) 
> draft, adds the change to remove “W3C does not sponsor conferences” , 
> adds an explanation of 60 day period between charter announcement and 
> the Call for Participation that is based on yesterday’s discussion of 
> that topic and added a comment date of 27 August (4 weeks from 3 
> August) which assumes that the AC call goes out tomorrow, 3 August. If 
> Chaals issues an updated draft, the HTML Diff link will need to be 
> updated. The other two links (to the document and detailed change 
> list) point to the most current draft. Perhaps these should be changed 
> to point explicitly at the draft that is put out for review so that, 
> as comments come in and are processed, we can have updated drafts for 
> our use and not change which draft is being reviewed.
>
> Steve Z
>
> =========Draft Letter ========
>
> All,
>
> The Advisory Board is forwarding a proposed Process 2016 draft [1], 
> [2] and [3] to the Advisory Committee for consideration and comment. 
> The plan is that, based on the received comments, a revised draft will 
> be sent to the Advisory Committee for formal Review prior to the 
> September TPAC meeting and that there will be time for questions and 
> comments on the proposed Review document at the TPAC meeting.
>
> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html
>
> [2] http://clck.ru/A3XKF (HTML Diff version)
>
> [3] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/ (Detailed Diffs)
>

Looking at this more carefully, it seems that we need an HTML Diff - not 
from the 31 July version - but from the current Process (which is what 
the AC is measuring against).  Ralph and Chaals - did I miss an email - 
has that been sent somewhere on the thread?

Jeff


> Please send comments as soon as possible (to facilitate response 
> preparation) and prior to August 27^th (a 4 week comment period). 
> Comments should be sent  to public-w3process@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-w3process@w3.org> (Mailing list archive 
> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/>, publicly 
> available) or to process-issues@w3.org (Member-only archive 
> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/process-issues>). A Public Issue 
> Tracker <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/> and detailed 
> changelogs <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/> are available online. You may 
> discuss your comments on any other list, such as w3c-ac-forum@w3.org 
> <mailto:w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>, as long as you send the comments to one 
> of the W3process lists above and copy that list in the discussion.
>
> The *major changes* in this document and their rationale are outlined 
> below:
>
> *Renumbered - 5.2.8*, it becomes 5.2.7 (there was no section 5.2.7 in 
> Process 2015)
>
> *Removed the statement that the W3C doesn't organize conferences*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *Added a process to make a Recommendation Obsolete and consolidate it 
> with Rescinding a Recommendation*- 6.9 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#rec-rescind>
>
> The AB observed that there are some Recommendations that have (mostly) 
> outlived their usefulness and should no longer be implemented in new 
> software. This class of Recommendations, called Obsolete 
> Recommendations,  is different from the class of Rescinded 
> Recommendations. Rescinding is an existing process that has an effect 
> on patent licensing commitments (see section 5 of the patent policy). 
> This change only adds obsoleting (and un-obsoleting). A Recommendation 
> that is Obsoleted remains a Recommendation, it still has patent 
> licensing commitments and it can be referenced Normatively, but 
> implementation of that Recommendation is discouraged.
>
> Section 6.9 of the Process Document has been changed to add (to the 
> process to Rescind a Recommendation) a specification of the processes 
> to Obsolete and to un-Obsolete a Recommendation. The details of the 
> process are similar in each case, but the effect is different. For a 
> few reasons — to streamline the process, because it’s a simple yes/no 
> question (that is, the content of the affected Recommendation, except 
> for the Status section, does not change), and because we would only 
> obsolete when we don’t know of anyone to contact to ask for wide 
> review — Wide Review prior to the AC (and Public) Review is not 
> required or necessary.
>
> Anyone can request one of these actions. If the Working Group that 
> produced the specification is still extant (or exists as a 
> re-chartered group) then that Working Group acts to recommend that the 
> requested action take place. If there is no such Working Group, the 
> TAG acts to do a technical assessment of the requested action. If 
> proceeding is recommended or the AC appeals a rejection, then an AC 
> Review and the Director’s Decision determine the result. See 6.9 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#rec-rescind> 
> for the exact details.
>
> *Changed the voting for AB and TAG elections to Single Transferable 
> Vote*- 2.5.2 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#AB-TAG-elections>
>
> The W3C Membership recommended that W3C experiment with different 
> voting mechanisms for TAG and AB elections. After analysis of the 
> 2-year experiment that occurred as a result of that recommendation, 
> the Membership supported the adoption of an Single Transferable Vote 
> tabulation system for TAG and AB elections with the expectation that 
> it will be more representative of the Membership's will.
>
> The text that is in the proposed Process document was designed with 
> the following goals in mind:
>
> ·The *tabulation system* description (and choice of specific 
> tabulation system) should be independent of the *process document text*.
>
> ·The *tabulation system* should be described independent of specific 
> *voting operations* (e.g., the forms that members fill out).
>
> ·The *tabulation system* should be described independent of any 
> *software we use to compute results* (that is: we should not rely on a 
> single piece of software for implementation).
>
> The Team currently believes that the Meek STV 
> <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/steve/trunk/stv_background/meekm.pdf> 
> tabulation system is the best fit for the TAG and AB elections. 
> Details on why and how are at 
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/wiki/Voting2016.
>
> *Simplified and Rationalized Appeals*, so they can occur whether there 
> was dissent or not, and in a broader range of cases – see especially 
> 6.4 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#candidate-rec>, 
> 6.6 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#rec-publication>, 
> 6.9 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#rec-rescind>, 7 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#ReviewAppeal>, 
> 7.2 <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#ACAppeal>, 
> 7.3 <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/ACVotes>, 10 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#Submission>, 
> 10.4 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#SubmissionNo>, 
> 11 <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#GAProcess>
>
> Toward the end of the process of creating Process 2015, a number of 
> issues related to "appeals" in the W3C process surfaced. At that time, 
> there seemed to be too little time to appropriately address the issues 
> with the care that seemed to be needed. These issues (and ones which 
> have arisen since then) are addressed in the proposed Process 2016.
>
> These changes made the following clarifications:
>
> A.Which of the three types of appeal is to be used MUST be explicitly 
> identified. The three types are:
>
> i. Group Decision Appeal
>
> ii. Submission Appeal
>
> iii. Advisory Committee Appeal
>
> B.Who can initiate the appeal MUST be identified (whether it is an 
> individual or an AC Representative)
>
> C.What is being appealed, what "decision" and who (chair, Director, 
> W3C or Team) made it MUST be identified.
>
> D.There should be a specification of what DOCUMENTATION should 
> accompany each type of appeal. This is specified for a Group Decision 
> Appeal.
>
> Note: Formal Objections are not strictly an "appeal". They are 
> "registered" not "initiated" and they follow the document to which 
> they apply. A separate step, the Group Decision Appeal, that asks the 
> Director to "confirm or deny a decision" (of the group) is the appeal 
> mechanism. Any individual may register a Formal Objection, but only 
> group participants may issue a Group Decision Appeal and if they 
> belong to a Member organization then they must do so through their AC 
> Representative.
>
> Finally, the rules for what decisions are appealable were simplified 
> to be uniform across each class of decisions.
>
> *Clarified the rights and obligations of Member Consortia*and their 
> representatives - 2.1.2 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#RelatedAndConsortiumMembers>
>
> The Problems:
> When we introduced the Introductory Industry Membership level [4, 5] 
> we imposed limitations on the rights and privileges of this category 
> of Member. The proposed change eliminates the disagreement between the 
> current terms of an Introductory Industry Member per their Member 
> Agreement and this section of the Process which implies such Members 
> may participate in (all) Working Groups and Interest Groups.
> [4] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees?showall=1
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2014/08/intromem
> In looking at the way we define the entitlements of Member 
> Organizations that are also a Consortium in nature, there are a couple 
> of issues that need to be addressed.  They arise from the fact that we 
> allow these Members to appoint four (or more) people to represent them 
> within W3C.  While we say they are there to represent the Consortium 
> we have been experiencing cases where these designated representatives 
> are in fact representing their own interests.  This opens an IP 
> exposure for W3C because we don't have commitments from their 
> employers, just from the Consortium.  It also offers a "back door" for 
> large corporations to participate without joining themselves.  The 
> proposed changes, in section 2.1.2 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#RelatedAndConsortiumMembers>, 
> attempt to close those loopholes.
>
> *Clarified the process for continuing work on a specification 
> initially developed under another charter*- 5.2.3 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#CharterReview>, 
> 5.2.4 <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#cfp>, 
> 5.2.6 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#WGCharter>, 
> 6.2.2 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#transition-reqs>.
>
> When the W3C Patent Policy and Process Documents were drafted, some 
> Members may have assumed that work on a W3C Recommendation would be 
> the product of work under a single Working Group charter; instead, 
> Working Drafts often evolve through multiple Working Group charters. 
> The major uncertainty has often been phrased as "When do Working 
> Groups end?", but in fact concerns the situation where a 
> Recommendation is developed under more than one Working Group 
> Charter.  Many specifications take more than one charter period to 
> move from First Public Working Draft to Recommendation. There is a 
> longstanding practice of adopting a Working Draft that was published 
> under a previous charter, and continuing to develop it in a Working 
> Group with a newer charter.
>
> The changes apply to Working Drafts that have had a full exclusion 
> opportunity under a Working Group pursuant to the Patent Policy (i.e., 
> Reference Draft (RD) issued within 90 days of a First Public Working 
> Draft (FPWD) and a Candidate Recommendation (CR) (called Last Call 
> Working Draft (LCWD) in the Patent Policy).
>
> The changes in this draft cover:
>
> a)    A change in the W3C Process Document to clarify how work can 
> continue under a new Working Group charter on a Working Draft that has 
> already had a full exclusion opportunity; and
>
> b)    Suggested improvements in practice to improve the ability to 
> trace the origin of Working Drafts, and their associated Reference 
> Drafts and Candidate Recommendations.
>
> The most relevant text, currently in section 5.2.6 Working Group and 
> Interest Group Charters, is:
>
> “For every Recommendation Track deliverable that continues work on a 
> Working Draft (WD) published under any other Charter (including a 
> predecessor group of the same name), for which there is an existing 
> Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation, the description of that 
> deliverable in the proposed charter of the adopting Working Group 
> /must/ provide the following information:
>
> ·The title, stable URL, and publication date of the Adopted Working 
> Draft which will serve as the basis for work on the deliverable
>
> ·The title, stable URL, and publication date of the most recent 
> Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#last-call> 
> which triggered an Exclusion Opportunity per the Patent Process
>
> ·The stable URL of the Working Group charter under which the most 
> recent Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation was published.
>
> These data /must/ be identified in the charter with the labels 
> "Adopted Working Draft", "most recent Reference Draft", "most recent 
> Candidate Recommendation", and "Other Charter", respectively.
>
> The Reference Draft is the latest Working Draft published within 90 
> days of the First Public Working Draft 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#first-wd> or if 
> no Public Working Draft has been published within 90 days of the First 
> Public Working Draft it is that First Public Working Draft. It is the 
> specific draft against which exclusions are made, as per section 4.1 
> <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-exclusion-with> of 
> the W3C Patent Policy <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy> 
> [PUB33 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#ref-patentpolicy>].
>
> The Adopted Working Draft and the most recent Reference Draft or 
> Candidate Recommendation 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#last-call> 
> /must/ each be adopted in their entirety and without any modification. 
> The proposed charter /must/ state that the most recent Reference Draft 
> or Candidate Recommendation is deemed to be the Reference Draft or 
> Candidate Recommendation of the Adopted Working Draft, and the date 
> when the Exclusion Opportunity that arose on publishing the First 
> Public Working Draft or Candidate Recommendation began and ended. As 
> per section 4.3 
> <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-join> of the W3C 
> Patent Policy <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy> [PUB33 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#ref-patentpolicy>], 
> this potentially means that exclusions can only be made immediately on 
> joining a Working Group.
>
> The Director /must not/ issue a call for participation less than 60 
> days after the beginning of an Advisory Committee Review for a charter 
> that continues work on a document that has had a Reference Draft or 
> Candidate Recommendation published.”
>
> This 60 waiting period guarantees that the Exclusion period for a 
> First Public Working Draft issued 90 days before the announcement of a 
> (re-)charter or a Candidate Recommendation issued before the 
> announcement of the (re-)charter will have completed under the charter 
> under which it was issued. This also allows time to assess any patent 
> implications that might arise from a scope change in the new charter.
>
> Other changes are in 5.2.3 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#CharterReview>, 
> 5.2.4 <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#cfp>, 
> 6.2.2 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#transition-reqs>
>
> Note:  Except for Section 3.1 of the Patent Policy, there is no 
> explicit statement in the
>
> Patent Policy that commitments made under the Patent Policy ever expire.
>