Re: W3C Process 2016

We have some comments on the draft process; these comments are based on the 3 August 2016 draft at <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html>.

Mostly on (surprise) the “continuing work on a working draft” matters.


** General **

We probably should do another pass and try to make sure that capitalization of terms defined in this document is used consistently and correctly (only for terms defined here). I realize this is tedious, and I’ve tried to point out places that may need inspection and attention, below.

** Section 2.1.2.1 **

This definition of “Member Consortium” is broad enough to cover a corporation with a typical shareholder structure.  However, corporations have traditionally been treated as “Members” and not “Member Consortium.” Please clarify that a “Membership Consortium” does not include a corporation.


** Section 5.2.4 **

In this sentence:

"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.”

The language “there has been an Exclusion Opportunity” in the parenthetical might indicate that the exclusion opportunity has already ended.  The 60-day period should apply even if the exclusion opportunity hasn’t yet ended. Please delete the parenthesis text: "(i.e there has been an Exclusion Opportunity per section 4.1 of the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33])"


** Section 5.2.6 **

Capitalization:
 • “Charter” is not a defined term, so should not be capitalized. 
 • The term “exclusion opportunity” is not defined and should not be capitalized.
 • “Call for Participation” should be capitalized here and throughout the document.
 • First Public Working Draft is a defined term, but public Working Draft is not (so no caps on public)

"The title, stable URL, and publication date of the Adopted Working Draft which will serve”: 
We’re selecting the Working Draft, so we should use ‘that’, not ‘which’, and the draft as-is is in the process of being adopted by this charter, but when it was produced (and what we’re pointing at) is one previously produced, so delete “Adopted”.


"The title, stable URL, and publication date of the most recent Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation which triggered an Exclusion Opportunity per the Patent Process”

Publication of a Reference Draft or CR always triggers an exclusion opportunity; do we need the "which triggered an Exclusion Opportunity per the Patent Process”? Please delete. But we should consider putting the date requirement here if we really want it (see below), so move up here “and the dates of its exclusion opportunity”.

On this sentence:

"The Reference Draft is the latest Working Draft published within 90 days of the First Public Working Draft 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 of the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33].“

We need to say that the exclusion opportunity is possibly prospective, so “are to be made” would be a better phrasing. The link to the PP might be better earlier:

"The Reference Draft is the latest Working Draft published within 90 days of the First Public Working Draft  or, if no public Working Draft has been published within 90 days of the First Public Working Draft, then it is the First Public Working Draft (see section 4.1 of the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33]), and is the draft against which exclusions are to be made, as per that section."

On this sentence:

"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.”

"the Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation of the Adopted Working Draft” — drafts don’t “have” reference drafts, but we do need to say that the *group* owns this.

It’s only one of the possible Reference Drafts or CRs of this group, so also change “the” to “a” —  "is deemed to be a Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation…”.

Putting it all together:
"The proposed charter must state that the most recent Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation is deemed to be a Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation, respectively, of the adopting Working Group, and the applicable exclusion review period is deemed to be completed with regard to the adopting Working Group upon its formation.”

(The date requirement that is here should be up in the bullets, we we want to require it.)

We also think that this sentence is sufficient and we’d prefer not to interpret the patent policy, and hence would prefer to delete this sentence:

"As per section 4.3 of the W3C Patent Policy[PUB33], this potentially means that exclusions can only be made immediately on joining a Working Group.”

On this:

"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.” As noted, drafts don’t “have” reference drafts:

"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 Working Draft for which there is a Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation."


This is a mess of edits, here it is in a clean version (I hope):

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 Working Draft that will serve as the basis for work on the deliverable; 
 • The title, stable URL, and publication date of the associated most recent Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation, and the dates of its exclusion period;
 • 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  or, if no public Working Draft has been published within 90 days of the First Public Working Draft, then it is the First Public Working Draft (see section 4.1 of the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33]), and is the draft against which exclusions are to be made, as per that section.  

The Adopted Working Draft and the most recent Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation 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 a Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation, respectively, of the adopting Working Group, and the applicable exclusion review period is deemed to be completed with regard to the adopting Working Group upon its formation.  

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 Working Draft document for which there is a Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation.



Dave Singer

singer@mac.com

Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2016 17:50:18 UTC