Re: accumulated process document and introduction text comments...

I'll push a new Editor's draft shortly for review, but here's what I think  
I did in regards to these comments…

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 18:07:41 +0200, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:

> Intro Text:
>
> I would strongly suggest we refer to  
> <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.

Agreed. We may want to point to the other supergroup questions raised and  
in some cases resolved, in  
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-supergroups/2014Mar/att-0004/Supergroups.html>

>
>
> 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.
Since I made a new draft there is a statement relevant to the new draft,  
but yeah...
>
>> A change history nased based on the 1 September 2015 Process Document  
>> is part of this provided.
Yes.
>> 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*?
Yep. Fixed.
>> 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.
I don't think we're making any special statement about who their AC rep is.
>> "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.
It does mean IPR commitments, and I've tweaked it.
>
>
>> 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>).
Yes, I did something along those lines.
> 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”?
Clarified that we use an STV system. I wondered if I should add a link to  
wikipedia for the information of those who are unsure what STV is …?
>
>
> 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.]
done
>
> 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 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.
I didn't remove the reference, there isn't one close by.
>
> 5.2.6
There are a lot of things here. Anything I don't comment about explicitly  
below I think I have done.
>
>> 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 of the W3C 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”)
This isn't a label, "most recent" are normal english words that work fine.

> 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”)
since "Other Charter" isn't used, I didn't add the label.
>
> 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  
> of the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33]), and is the draft against which  
> exclusions are to be >made, as per that sectionsection 4.1 of the W3C  
> 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
Done, but note that I will raise an objection to this.

The commitments and exclusions are to the specification, not the WG, and  
therefore the CR/RefDraft is *the* CR/RD of the specification.
> and the applicable exclusion review period is deemed to be completed  
> with regard to the adopting Working Group upon its formation.
I added to this a ponter to section 4.3 of patent policy and clarification  
that it means exclusions have to be made on joining in this situation.
>
> 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.
>
> 6.9The 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>
>
> it needs adding as well. It adds the sentence:
> "Obsoletion may be reversed, using the same process as for obsoleting a  
> Recommendation."
Yes, done.
> 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;”
done
>
>
> 7 - “Director Decision” should be “Director decision”, unless it is a  
> defined term.
yes.

> 7.2the 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)”
Yep.

cheers

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com