W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > August 2016

Re: W3C Process 2016: Charter extensions and 60 days publication blackouts

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 11:05:17 -0700
Cc: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <82FEDC49-C398-4654-B146-9CB29235A0CB@apple.com>
To: Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>

> On Aug 30, 2016, at 0:15 , Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org> wrote:
>>> Concretely, the 60 days without FPWD is not sufficient if we have "Reference Drafts" 
>>> that can be published less than 90 days after FPWD, so for consistency, there should be
>>> a second condition forbidding to update a FPWD published less than 90 days before 
>>> the start of the review. OR (I prefer that, actually) we use "FPWD" instead of 
>>> Reference Draft in the wording. That second option matches the current implementation
>>> (Ref Draft = FPWD, as long as there's no WG change).
>> I think there are two questions being mixed in here, and it???s worth teasing them apart.
>> a) Can I write a charter that clearly delineates which documents are ???under the patent policy??? as the group forms? Clearly, if documents go ???under the policy??? AFTER the charter was written, the answer is no. Hence the restriction on doing transitions AFTER the charter text is written and being reviewed.  Do we all agree that those are things that this group will be working on and responsible for ???ab initio????
> Currently if a WG starts a new FPWD while its rechartering is already at AC review stage,
> the new FPWD is not covered in the new charter unless it is mentioned explicitly as
> deliverable. If that FPWD was NOT mentioned as a deliverable in the active charter, it 
> is not possible to publish it anyway.

I am not sure, but are you mixing up "formal adoption of drafts that are already ‘under’ the patent policy” with "what work is in scope for the working groups, as documented by their charters”? We’re only dealing with the former here; we presume that the work is in scope for both WGs.

> So I'm not sure there's a good reason for that restriction, really, The charter under 
> review will now include all documents published (new requirement on charters) and the 
> future deliverables (as before).

But it won’t, that’s the problem. Let’s say the Fruit WG is chartered to produce specs for any kind of Fruit. Later, someone wants to do a Zucchini spec. and someone claims that they are vegetables, not fruit. To deal with this, a new Charter is written to put veg in scope, the group will be called “Fruit and Veg WG” and Zucchini and the squash family are mentioned as possible deliverables.

But the group is also working on Oranges, and Bananas.  In scope for both charters. We want to avoid the following sequence:

1. Fruit WG forms
2. Fruit WG issues an FPWD of "Oranges and Citrus”.
3. The new Fruit and Veg Charter is written and sent to review. It says (correctly) that there has been a FPWD of the Oranges and Citrus WD and an associated exclusion period.
4. Fruit WG issues a new FPWD of “Bananas WD”, triggering an exclusion period.
5. Fruit and Veg WG forms and there is a call for participation against the charter, but that charter doesn’t mention Bananas WD as having been adopted. New members are not informed, by the charter, of the ongoing Bananas work that’s under the PP.

> If a document, published during the review period 
> or not, was omitted, then too bad, you're good for another rechartering. 

Sorry, are you saying that, having just got Fruit and Veg WG approved and formed, I must immediately re-charter it?  Isn’t that more tedious than simply holding the Bananas FPWD until Fruit and Veg forms, and issuing it then? Honestly, the delay is a formal one: we’re not saying that Fruit WG can’t work on Bananas, they can, in working group (not public) drafts; they just can’t issue the FPWD, that’s all. Hold off on that until you’re working under the new charter.

> If it was mentioned as a future deliverable in the charter under review, but published 
> during the review (unlikely, I think), then the triggered CfE won't be completed until 
> the end of the WG. The proposed 60d delay should really be a >90d (delay for
> leaving the group without commitment), or no delay + a new CfE starts with the new
> group (as we do with a group change, latest draft is a Ref Draft). Currently, implicit 
> continuation means CfE continues, and new members have to exclude upon joining.

The ‘implicit’ status is what we’re trying to make more explicit. And as I say, the 60 days is to give adequate warning to members potentially joining Fruit and Veg WG who were not members of Fruit WG.

>> b) For anyone joining this newly chartered group at its beginning, they might wish to file an exclusion on such drafts. If they were members of the originating group, they are aware of it and have been tracking it, but there may be new members. Because the list of drafts is in the charter, they can prepare any exclusion they need to file if given enough time; for various complex reasons, we chose 60 days as the minimum interval for the newcomers to be allowed to think. Otherwise newcomers might be forced to delay their join until after the group ahs formed and started work.
> If we apply a CfE for any FPWD published during charter review (i.e. mentioned as a 
> deliverable in the charter, but has been published in the meantime), newcomers have the
> 90d delay to leave, and 150d exclusion period. They don't need to delay.

I think you may be interpreting the patent policy, and that your interpretation may not be universally shared.  (The proposed changes carefully avoid answering the question of whether Fruit and Veg WG is a ‘new’ working group or not, which is a theological question that has occupied great minds for far too long.)

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2016 18:06:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:40 UTC