Re: Updated Editor's draft

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 08:45:38PM +0200, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote:
> 
> >not just supergroups (btw, can we stop calling that supergroup? a
> >supergroup is currently a group with taskforces, even if that name does
> >not appear in the Process)
> 
> the name 'supergroup' doesn't, and I hope won't, appear in the
> process, precisely because it means different things to different
> people.

OK, but I had the feeling that it was not intended to be applied to all
group recharterings.

> For example I think of a "supergroup" as a concept defining things
> that get renewed repeatedly, and whose deliverables change - either
> explicitly or because their main deliverable is actually review.

I don't parse the end of your sentence, can you rephrase?

> I also think it is a *somewhat* useful term for thinking about a
> setof problems, but that it is not precise enough that we should try
> to formalise it and be limited by that.

I agree, in particular if it becomes the general rule for all groups.
Otherwise, we need a definition.

> >If the intent is indeed to include all kinds of rechartering, what
> >happens to the current rule of 45 days grace period after the CfP
> >for
> >rejoining?
> 
> It is still there.
> 
> The purpose of the 60 days is for people who weren't in the group,
> realise it is about to work on something they care about, and feel a
> need to do a patent check, but want to start "on day 1" in the new
> group, and for people already in the group who feel they need to
> check some item that has been put into the new charter.

I understand the reason for the 60 days, but the grace period being 
there in the process roughly for similar reasons (patent search on new items
in a charter), but with a start at the CfP, it puts old participants and 
new ones with different delays:
new ones get 60 days (or more) starting from AC review of charter, then
7 days to exclude upon joining ("7 days" is the implementation of the PP 
"immediate" exclusion). If they join right away when the CfP is issued, and
the CfP is at review+60d, that makes it 67 days after start of review.
old participants get the 60 days too, of course, but they have the additional
45 days of the grace period. You'll tell me it's already the case that they
have 45 d vs. 7d, but what I want to point out is that the 45d grace period
is not that relevant after you got 60d review...

> >Also, the use of the term "adopting Working Group" seems to
> >contradict the inclusion of "predecessor group of the same name".
> >
> >The current implicit continuation of licensing commitments in a WG would
> >disappear as well?
> 
> The implicit continuation reflects practice and good sense, but is
> entirely unclear and people have read the Process and Patent Policy
> as not implying that continuation. The point of the change is to
> ensure that it happens, explicitly.

The WG name has been meaning implicit continuation, and different name 
meaning new work. I think it is good sense and the only issue comes from
trying to merge 2 groups into 1, while it could have continued joint work
(similarly to XQuery WG and XSLT WG working together on XPath specs for many
years). Too much ratholing, but it may be too late to go back at this point.

The new process needs to be clear about implicit vs. explicit continuation:
If we mean to have only explicit continuation, we ought to have only 1 kind
of WG, with clear rules about continuation (each new charter should list
all specs that will carry on licensing commitments and disclosures/exclusions
data). And anticipate more scenarios, like group name change, joint group
publications, recharter during an exclusion period (i.e. 90d from a FPWD pub.),
all sorts of painful corner cases. In the end, I think explicit-only continuation
will just make rechartering even more painful. I can imagine Daniel's face in 
front of the list of CSS WG specs.

 
-- 
Carine Bournez /// W3C Europe

Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2016 08:20:17 UTC