- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2016 23:12:39 -0400
- To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
On 8/5/2016 6:46 PM, Ian Jacobs wrote: > Chaals, > > I read Process 2016 (3 Aug draft [1]) and have some suggestions. > Sorry for the length; the Proc Doc is also long. :) > > Ian > > [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/cfef536bff0d/cover.html > > ================ > 1 Introduction > > -------- > "the W3C equivalent of a Web standard." This struck me as odd on > this read; equivalent to what? > > Proposed: "the W3C expression of a Web standard." > > -------- > "(e.g., Web services)". This feels like a dated example. > > Proposed: delete the parenthetical. > > ================ > 2.1.2 Membership Consortia and related Members > > "who have individual persons" and > "who have organizations as Members" > > Proposed: s/who/that > > =============== > 2.1.3.2 Advisory Committee Meetings > > "The number of Full and Affiliate W3C Members." There are new > Membership levels, so this feels a bit off. > > Proposed: "Number and profile of W3C Members" > > =============== > 2.4.1 Technical Architecture Group Participation > > "Appointees are not required to be on the W3C Team." This was surely > written long ago and doesn't really speak to actual practice. I do > not recall a Team appointee, and I also think the Director in > practice wants to populate the TAG with non-Team. > > Proposed: "Appointees SHOULD NOT be from the W3C Team." While I agree that Ian is probably correct, given that this is a substantive change, it has not gone through process CG (or AB) vetting, and the Director has not been consulted, I think this should be held over for the next process rev. > > =============== > 2.5.3 Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Vacated Seats > > "the Chair asks the participant to resign." I think this is a bug. > Because these people are elected, I don't believe this should be > a "TAG Chair" right but rather a "Director" right. > > Proposed: "the Director removes the participant from their seat." Same comment as above. > > =============== > 3.1.1 Conflict of Interest Policy > > "clearly a function of the individual's affiliations". This sounded > more editorial than necessary. > > Proposed sentence replacement: > > "The ability of an individual to fulfill a role within a group > without risking a conflict of interest depends significantly on the > individual's affiliations." > > ================ > 4 Dissemination Policies > > "maintains a calendar [MEM3]" > > That calendar is deprecated in favor of a public calendar. That is: the > W3C staff no longer maintains a "member only" calendar. > > Proposal: > - Delete MEM3 in 12.2 > - Add a new reference to the public calendar in the public > resources and update all references from MEM3 to the new one. > Public calendar: http://www.w3.org/participate/eventscal > > ================ > 5.1 Requirements for All Working and Interest Groups > > "Existing charters that are not yet public must be made public when > next revised or extended (with attention to changing confidentiality > level)." I believe there are no more such charters and never will be. > > Proposed: Delete the sentence. Same comment as above. > > ================ > 5.2.4 Call for Participation in a Working Group or Interest Group > > -------- > "After a Call for Participation, any Member representatives and > Invited Experts must be designated (or re-designated)." > > I believe Team practice is slightly different: > > a) If the charter involves no new Rec-track deliverables (and thus > there are no new patent obligations), participants are informed > of the new charter but are not required to rejoin. > > Otherwise, Members are asked to rejoin. > > b) Regarding Invited Experts, I don't exactly know what happens, > including whether they must re-apply to participate. > > Therefore, I believe this sentence needs review. > > -------- > "If a charter includes deliverables that continue work on a > document" > > This is the first time this concept appears in the document and it > is introduced with no explanation. The concept is developed in > 5.2.6 (see my comments about that section). The sentence in 5.2.4 > is repeated in section 5.2.6. I think 5.2.4 can be simplified to > just include a reference. > > Proposed: Replace > > "If a charter includes deliverables that continue work > on a document for which a Reference Draft or Candidate > Recommendation has previously been published (i.e there has > been an Exclusion Opportunity per section 4.1 of the W3C Patent > Policy [PUB33]), the Director must not issue a Call for > Participation less than 60 days after the beginning of the > Advisory Committee Review of the charter." > > with: > > "See section 5.2.6.1 for information about a Call for > Participation in a Working Group that has taken up a > specification from another group." I guess this needs PSIG review. > > ================ > 5.2.6 Working Group and Interest Group Charters > > --------------- > "Intellectual property information. What are the intellectual > property (including patents and copyright) considerations affecting > the success of the Group? In particular, is there any reason to > believe that it will be difficult to meet the Royalty-Free > licensing goals of section 2 of the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33]?" > > This text is disconnected from reality. Our charters include > boilerplate text about the Patent Policy and, on occasion, > document licensing information. I believe the questions quoted > above, while they may be considered while discussing the work, > never result information actually included in the charter (which > is what this bullet list is about). > > Proposed: Replace the bullet with: > > * Intellectual property information. Include information about > the governing patent policy and document license. > > --------------- > The new text about a group that takes up work from another > group is introduced without explanation. It is also sufficiently > long that it deserves its own subsection. > > Proposed: > > - Create a new subsection 5.2.6.1 with title: > "When a Working Group takes up a Specification Initiated Under Another Charter" > > - The section should start with "For every Recommendation Track > deliverable...." and end with "The Director must not issue a > call for participation less than 60 days..." > > - The section should be moved to the bottom of 5.2.6. That means > that the text "See also the charter requirements of section 2 > and section 3 of the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33]." would be > followed immediately by "An Interest Group charter may include > provisions regarding participation,..." and the rest of the > text of section 5.2.6. Then insert 5.2.6.1. > > - The following are editorial suggestions for the text of the > future 5.2.6.1: > > * Start by explaining what this section covers. Proposed: > > "From time to time, a W3C Working Group takes up work that > was initiated but not completed by another Working Group. > This section of the process document describes how W3C > ensures that the hand-off occurs in a manner consistent > with the W3C Patent Policy, and with minimal disruption > to the work." > > * "For every Recommendation Track deliverable that continues > work". I find it awkward to speak of a deliverable > continuing work. Proposed: > > <blockquote> > When the Director proposes that a Working Group take up a > Recommendation Track deliverable initially published under > any other Charter (including a predecessor group of the > same name) the charter MUST include the following > information for each deliverable: > > - The title, stable URL, and publication date of any > Adopted Working Draft that 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 that 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. > </blockquote> Same comment as several earlier ones: it seems late in the process with no discussion in CG or AB. Probably should be held over for next rev. > > ================ > 6.1.2 Maturity Levels > > "Rescinded Recommendation" is defined but "Obsoleted > Recommendation" is not. Meanwhile, 6.9 includes a definition of > Rescinded Recommendation that may not align exactly with what is > written here. > > Proposed: 6.1.2 include definitions for both terms, with enough > explanation so one can see here how they differ. That may reduce > what needs to be said in 6.9. I'm happy to provide a suggestion > if you'd like. > > ================ > 6.2 General requirements and definitions > > "Please note that publishing as used in this document refers to > producing a version which is listed as a W3C Technical Report on > its Technical Reports page https://www.w3.org/TR [PUB11]." > > That sentence is a repeat of the first sentence in 6.1. > > Proposed: Delete the sentence in 6.2. > > ================ > 6.2.1 General requirements for Technical Reports > > "An editor must be a participant, as a Member representative, Team > representative, or Invited Expert". I'm not sure of the value > of spelling out the types of participant. > > Proposed: "An editor must be a participant (see section 5.2.1) in > the Group responsible for the document(s) being edited." > > > ================ > 6.2.5 Classes of Changes > > s/Examples of changes in this class are/Examples of changes in this class include:/ > > s/such changes do not belong to this class../such changes do not fall into this class./ > > For the second edit note that: > - the first sentence of bullet 2 uses the phrase "fall into this class" > which I suggest repeating here. > - double period => single period > > ================ > 6.6 W3C Recommendation > > "The decision to advance a document to Recommendation is a W3C > Decision." This sentence is the only one of its kind in the document. > Section 7 defines W3C decision: > > "A W3C decision is one where the Director (or the Director's > delegate) has exercised the role of assessing consensus after an > Advisory Committee review." > > And if you follow the link to AC review you see a list of things: > > > * new and modified Working and Interest Groups, > * Proposed Recommendations, Proposed Edited Recommendations, Proposal to Rescind a Recommendation, and > * Proposed changes to the W3C process. > > None of the other corresponding sections of the document have an > outright statement that "this is a W3C decision" other than 6.6. > > Proposed: Delete "The decision to advance a document to > Recommendation is a W3C Decision." as redundant. > > ================ > 6.7.2 Revising a Recommendation > > "Such publications may be called a Proposed Edited Recommendation." > > I am not aware that we call them anything else. Furthermore, I think > it would create confusion if we called the same thing by different > names, especially after a tradition of calling them PERs. > > Proposed: Change to: > > "Such publications are called Proposed Edited Recommendations." > > ================ > 6.8 Publishing a Working Group or Interest Group Note > > ------------ > "Working Groups and Interest Groups publish material that is not a > formal specification as Notes. ... as well as specifications ..." > > This paragraph includes mildly self-contradictory statements. > > Proposed: Change the paragraph (with new bulleted list) to: > > "Working Groups and Interest Groups MAY publish Notes for a > variety of reasons, including: > > * supporting documentation for a specification such as > explanations of design principles or use cases and requirements, > * non-normative guides to good practices, and > * specifications where work has been stopped and there is no > longer consensus for publishing them as Recommendations." > > ------------ > "may remain a Working Group Note indefinitely" > > This section is about both WG and IG Notes. > > Proposed: Delete "Working Group" > > ================ > 6.9 Obsoleting or Rescinding a W3C Recommendation > > ------------- > I think some of the terminology could be simplified. > > * I suggest using the word "Restore" when referring to undoing > a previous decision to rescind or obsolete a Rec. > * I suggest avoiding "obsoletion" and "rescindment"; see > concrete suggestions below. > > ------------- > "W3C may rescind a Recommendation, for example ..." > "W3C may obsolete a Recommendation, for example " > > Please start with an introductory sentence to frame the > discussion. > > Proposed: > > "From time to time, W3C may find it necessary to undo a > Recommendation. W3C uses a similar process but different > terminology to distinguish the severity of new advice > > - "Rescinded Recommendation": W3C no longer recommends > this technology and is extremely unlikely to restore it. > > - "Obsoleted Recommendation": W3C no longer recommends > this technology but there is a reasonable chance W3C > could restore it. > > W3C might rescind a Recommendation when: > > * W3C concludes it contains many errors that conflict with a later > version, or > * W3C discovers burdensome patent claims that affect implementers > and cannot be resolved; see the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33] and > in particular section 5 (bullet 10) and section 7.5. > > W3C might obsolete a Recommendation when: > > * W3C concludes it no longer represents best practices, or > * Industry has not adopted the technology and future > adoption seems unlikely." > > ------------- > Proposed: Change > > "Obsoletion may be reversed, using the same process as for > obsoleting a Recommendation, if for example a specification > is later more broadly adopted." > > to: > > "W3C uses the same process for obsoleting or restoring a > Recommendation." > > Note that you don't need to talk about the scenario since that's > already listed earlier. > > ------------- > Proposed: Change > > "The Director must begin a review of a proposal to obsolete, > un-obsolete or rescind a Recommendation when requested to do > so by any of the following:" > > to: > > "The Director MUST begin a review of a proposal to obsolete, > rescind, or restore a Recommendation when requested to do so > by any of the following:" > > ------------- > Proposed: Change > > "Any individual who made a request to the relevant Working > Group as described above, or the TAG if such a group does not > exist, to consider a Recommendation for obsoletion or > rescindment, whose request was not answered within 90 days" > > to: > > "Any individual who made a request to the relevant Working > Group as described above, or to the TAG if no such group > exists, to obsolete or rescind a Recommendation, > whose request was not answered within 90 days" > > ------------- > Proposed: Change > > "indicate that this is a proposal to Rescind, Obsolete, or > reverse the Obsoletion of, a Recommendation" > > to: > > "indicate that this is a proposal to Rescind, Obsolete, or > Restore a Recommendation" > > ------------- > Proposed: Change > > "For any review of a proposal to obsolete or rescind a > Recommendation the Director must:" > > to: > > "For any review of a proposal to obsolete, rescind, or > restore a Recommendation the Director must:" > > ------------- > Proposed: Change > > "publish a rationale for rescinding the Recommendation." > > to: > > "publish rationale for the proposal" > > (Since this process could be about obsolete and restore, too) > > ------------- > It should be possible for the Director restore a Rescinded > Recommendation. We cannot predict the future. Suppose the > Director rescinded a Recommendation because of a patent issue > but then that patent is invalidated. We might want to restore > the Recommendation. The Patent Policy says: > > "If the Recommendation is rescinded by W3C, then no new licenses > need be granted but any licenses granted before the Recommendation > was rescinded shall remain in effect." > > I believe that allows room to restore a Rescinded Recommendation > and get new licenses. > > > ------------- > Proposed: Change > > "Note: the original Recommendation document will continue to > be available at its version-specific URL." > > to: > > "Note: W3C strives to ensure that any > Recommendation -- even obsoleted or rescinded -- > remains available at its original address with > a status update." > > (Notes: I've modified the text for consistency with similar text > in 6.2.1. The concept of "version-specific URL" is not defined > in the Process Document. Also, I think we should make > clear that we do intend to provide a status update.) > > ================ > 7.1.1 Start of a Review Period > > "review form" > > This feels like an implementation detail to me. > > Proposed: s/The review form/The Call for Review/ > > ================ > 8 Workshops and Symposia > > According to the archives of W3C Workshops: > https://www.w3.org/2003/08/Workshops/archive > > There has been exactly one event in 21 years with the word > "Symposium" in the title. > > The Process Document does not indicate any material difference > between the two. > > Proposed: > * Remove the concept of Symposium from the Process Document > > Note that nothing prevents someone from organizing a W3C > Workshop with "Symposium" in the title. > > ================ > 12.1 Public Resources > > * PUB25: The link is 404. Should be: > https://www.w3.org/2004/10/27-tag-charter.html > > ================ > 12.2 Member-only Resources > > * MEM3: See earlier comment; this has been deprecated > * MEM4: Now called "Process, Patent Policy, Finances Guide" > Meanwhile, there is a different resource called > "Member Intro and FAQ" https://www.w3.org/Member/faq.html > Perhaps MEM4 should be updated to point there (with the > current title) > * MEM9: This resource is now public and should be moved up to 12.1 > > ================ > OTHER COMMENTS: > > * I expected to see mention of the Code of Ethics and Professional > Conduct: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/ > > One place to include it: 3.1 Individual Participation Criteria. > > * Minor editorial: > > 6.1: s/member review/Member review > 6.1.2: s/as per/per > 6.1.2: s/review which begins/review that begins/ > 6.7.1: s/Working groups may/Working Groups may/ > > -- > Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs > Tel: +1 718 260 9447 > > >
Received on Sunday, 7 August 2016 03:12:53 UTC