accumulated process document and introduction text comments...

Intro Text:

I would strongly suggest we refer to <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2016AprJun/0176.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2016AprJun/0176.html>>, or copy it and edit it lightly to remove the suggestion that we are solving ‘THE’ supergroups question, and instead say it’s to cover the question of how work that spans more than one charter period is handled.

Process document:

Section:  Status of this Document

This draft makes editorial changes to clarify the status of an Obsolete Recommendation with respect to the Patent Policy and clarify the process requirements when a charter continues work on a document for which a Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation has previously been published that has previously had an Exclusion Opportunity according to the Patent Policy.

A change history nased based on the 1 September 2015 Process Document is part of this provided.



2.1.1
I don’t understand "the rights and privileges of W3C Membership granted by W3C Process extend to the the organization's paid staff and Advisory Committee”
Half of this talks about the organization (its paid staff) and the other talk about the W3C (Advisory Committee). Does it mean that the rights and obligations extend to their paid staff and their AC *Rep*?

Are we trying to say that their AC rep (a) does not have to be a paid staff member and (b) also gets the rights and privileges.  If this is the intent, we should say that explicitly.

"For all representatives of a Member that is a Consortium, as described in the preceeding two paragraphs, any IPR contributions are only those of the individual person or Consortium they are representing as no IPR commitments have been granted by the individuals' employers.”

There are no such things as “IPR Contributions”.  Does it mean IPR commitments? It is not entirely clear what this section is trying to achieve.

I think that these paragraphs should be separated into a new section 2.1.2 “Members organizations that are consortia” as the last paragraph goes back to being general. Or move the last paragraph up into the general statements, (before "If the Member is itself a consortium,”).  (See also Wendy’s comments <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2016Jul/0028.html>).
2.2  - Is the language “Group decision appeals” correct?

2.5.2
"using a single transferable vote” — if we are voting for more than one seat, don’t we have N votes?  Delete “single”?

5.2.3:

Transition Rrequests to First Public Working Draft or Candidate Recommendation will not normally be approved while a Working Group's charter is undergoing, or awaiting a Director's Ddecision on, an Advisory Committee Review, until the Director issues a Call for Participation for the Working Group. [Are Transition Requests or Director’s Decision defined terms?  if not, then use lower case.]

5.2.4

If a charter includes deliverables that continue work on a documents for which a Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation haves previously been published (i.e there has been an Exclusion Opportunity 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]), the Director must not issue a call for participation less than 60 days after the beginning of the Advisory Committee Review of the charter.

5.2.6

For every Recommendation Track deliverable that continues work on a Working Draft (WD) published under any other cCharter (including a predecessor group of the same name), for which there is an existing Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation,an Exclusion Opportunity 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] has occurred, 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 which will serve as the basis for work on the deliverable (labelled “Adopted Working Draft”)
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 (“labelled “Most Recent Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation”)
The stable URL of the Working Group charter under which the most recent Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation Working Draft which triggered an Exclusion Opportunity was published. (labelled “Other Charter”)
The Reference Draft is the latest Working Draft published within 90 days of the First Public Working Draft, (FPWD) that has completed the First Public Working Draft exclusion period or if no public Working Draft is issued within 90 days of the FPWD, then it is the FPWD (see 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]), and is the draft against which exclusions are to be made, as per that sectionsection 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].

The Aadopted 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 the deemed to be a Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation, respectively, of the specification in 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 for which there is a Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendationfor which an Exclusion Opportunity has occurred.

6.9 
The terms Director and Recommendation should be capitalized.   Does the Director also need to publish rationale for obsoleting a Recommendation?

I noticed that the Obsoletion text doesn’t include the reversal provisions as detailed in the thread starting

<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2016Jun/0065.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2016Jun/0065.html>>

it needs adding as well. It adds the sentence:
"Obsoletion may be reversed, using the same process as for obsoleting a Recommendation."

and then at the start of the two options, add that, viz.:

"The announcement:

must indicate that this is a Proposal to Rescind, or a proposal to Obsolete, or a proposal to reverse Obsoletion of, a Recommendation;”


7 - “Director Decision” should be “Director decision”, unless it is a defined term.  

7.2 
the text "only appeal when there is dissent.” is free-floating and probably should be deleted.
I would put a comma after no in "(yes, no or abstain)”








David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.