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

Re: Draft intro to Process 2016 Document to be sent to

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:36:33 -0400
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, Stephen Zilles <steve@zilles.org>, "ab@w3.org" <ab@w3.org>
Cc: Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <91da2fb8-36a0-632f-d695-7f5fa7b4929f@w3.org>


On 7/29/2016 2:46 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
> Jeff,
>
> Thank you for finding my typos. See below for the more substantive 
> comment.
>
> Steve Z
>
> *From:*Jeff Jaffe [mailto:jeff@w3.org]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 29, 2016 8:50 AM
> *To:* Stephen Zilles <steve@zilles.org>; ab@w3.org
> *Cc:* Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Draft intro to Process 2016 Document to be sent to
>
> Bravo!
>
> Typos and a few comments.
>
> On 7/29/2016 11:39 AM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
>     All,
>
>     As promised at the last AB Telcon, I have drafted a cover letter
>     to go with the proposed Process 2016 draft to be sent to the AC
>     for consideration and comments.
>
>     Steve Z
>
>     =========Draft Letter ========
>
>     All,
>
>     The Advisory Board is forwarding a proposed Process 2016 draft
>     [1], [2] and [3] to the Advisory Committee for consideration and
>     comment. The plan is that, based on the received comments, a
>     revised draft will be sent to the Advisory Committee for formal
>     Review prior to the September TPAC meeting and that there will be
>     time for questions and comments on the proposed Review document at
>     the TPAC meeting.
>
>     [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html>
>
>     [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/07/28-Process2016-diff.html
>     <https://www.w3.org/2016/07/28-Process2016-diff.html> (HTML Diff
>     version)
>
>     [3] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/ (Detailed Diffs)
>
>     Please send comments to public-w3process@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-w3process@w3.org> (Mailing list archive
>     <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/>, publicly
>     available) or to process-issues@w3.org
>     <mailto:process-issues@w3.org> (Member-only archive
>     <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/process-issues>). A Public
>     Issue Tracker <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/> and
>     detailed changelogs <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/> are available
>     online. You may discuss your comments on any other list, such as
>     w3c-ac-forum@w3.org <mailto:w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>, as long as you
>     send the comments to one of the W3process lists above and copy
>     that list in the discussion.
>
>     The *major changes* in this document and their rationale are
>     outlined below:
>
>     *Renumber - 5.2.8*, it becomes 5.2.7 (there was no section 5.2.7
>     in Process 2015)
>
>     **
>
>     *Added a process to make a Recommendation Obsolete and consolidate
>     it with Rescinding a Recommendation*- 6.9
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#rec-rescind>
>
>     The AB observed that there are some Recommendations that have
>     (mostly) outlived their usefulness and should no longer be
>     implemented in new software. This class of Recommendations, called
>     Obsolete Recommendations,  is different from the class of
>     Rescinded Recommendations. A Recommendation that is Rescinded is
>     no longer a Recommendation and has no licensing commitments nor
>     can it be referenced Normatively. A Recommendation that is
>     Obsoleted remains a Recommendation, it still has patent licensing
>     commitments and it can be referenced Normatively, but
>     implementation of that Recommendation is discouraged.
>
>     Section 6.9 of the Process Document has been changed to specify
>     the processes to Rescind, to Obsolete and to un-Obsolete a
>     Recommendation. The details of the process are similar in each
>     case, but he
>
>
> s/he/the/
>
>
>     effect is different. Since all these decision are binary (that is,
>     the content of the affected Recommendation, except for the Status
>     section, does not change), Wide Review prior to the AC (and
>     Public) Review is not required or necessary. Anyone can request
>     one of these actions. If the Working Group that produced the
>     specification is still extent
>
>
> s/extent/extant/  (I believe)
>
>
>     (or exists as a re-chartered group) then that Working Group acts
>     to recommend that the requested action take place. If there is no
>     such Working Group, the TAG acts to do a technical assessment of
>     the requested action. If proceeding is recommended or the AC
>     appeals a rejection, then an AC Review and the Director’s Decision
>     determine the result. See 6.9
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#rec-rescind>
>     for the exact details.
>
>     *Changed the voting for AB and TAG elections to Single
>     Transferable Vote*- 2.5.2
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#AB-TAG-elections>
>
>     The W3C Membership recommended that W3C experiment with different
>     voting mechanisms for TAG and AB elections. After analysis of the
>     2-year experiment that occurred as a result of that
>     recommendation, the Membership supported the adoption of an Single
>     Transferable Vote tabulation system for TAG and AB elections with
>     the expectation that it will be more representative of the
>     Membership's will.
>
>     The text that is in the proposed Process document was designed
>     with the following goals in mind:
>
>       * The *tabulation system* description (and choice of specific
>         tabulation system) should be independent of the *process
>         document text*.
>       * The *tabulation system* should be described independent of
>         specific *voting operations* (e.g., the forms that members
>         fill out).
>       * The *tabulation system* should be described independent of any
>         *software we use to compute results* (that is: we should not
>         rely on a single piece of software for implementation).
>
>     The Team currently believes that the Meek STV
>     <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/steve/trunk/stv_background/meekm.pdf>
>     tabulation system is the best fit for the TAG and AB elections.
>     Details on why and how are at
>     https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/wiki/Voting2016.
>
>     *Simplify and Rationalize Appeals*, so they can occur whether
>     there was dissent or not, and in a broader range of cases – see
>     especially 6.4
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#candidate-rec>,
>     6.6
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#rec-publication>,
>     6.9
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#rec-rescind>,
>     7
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#ReviewAppeal>,
>     7.2
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#ACAppeal>,
>     7.3 <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/ACVotes>, 10
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#Submission>,
>     10.4
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#SubmissionNo>,
>     11 <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#GAProcess>
>
>     Toward the end of the process of creating Process 2015, a number
>     of issues related to "appeals" in the W3C process surfaced. At
>     that time, there seemed to be too little time to appropriately
>     address the issues with the care the seem
>
>
> s/the seem/that seemed/
>
>
>     to be needed. These issues (and ones which have arisen since then)
>     are addressed in the proposed Process 2016.
>
>     These changes made the following clarifications:
>
>     A.Which of the three types of appeal is to be used MUST be
>     explicitly identified. The three types are:
>
>     i. Group Decision Appeal
>
>     ii. Submission Appeal
>
>     iii. Advisory Committee Appeal
>
>     B.Who can initiate the appeal MUST be identified (whether it is an
>     individual or an AC Representative)
>
>     C.What is being appealed, what "decision" and who (chair,
>     Director, W3C or Team) made it MUST be identified.
>
>     D.There should be a specification of what DOCUMENTATION should
>     accompany each type of appeal. This is specified for a Group
>     Decision Appeal.
>
>     Note: Formal Objections are not strictly an "appeal". They are
>     "registered" not "initiated" and they follow the document to which
>     they apply. A separate step, the Group Decision Appeal, that asks
>     the Director to "confirm or deny a decision" (of the group) is the
>     appeal mechanism. Any individual may register a Formal Objection,
>     but only group participants may issue a Group Decision Appeal and
>     if they belong to a Member organization then they must do so
>     through their AC Representative.
>
>     Finally, the rules for what decisions are appealable were
>     simplified to be uniform across each class of decisions.
>
>     *Clarified the rights and obligations of Member Consortia*and
>     their representatives - 2.1.2
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#RelatedAndConsortiumMembers>
>
>     The Problems:
>
>     When we introduced the Introductory Industry Membership level [4,
>     5] we imposed limitations on the rights and privileges of this
>     category of Member. The proposed change eliminates the
>     disagreement between the current terms of an Introductory Industry
>     Member per their Member Agreement and this section of the Process
>     which implies such Members may participate in (all) Working Groups
>     and Interest Groups.
>
>     [4] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees?showall=1
>
>     [5] http://www.w3.org/2014/08/intromem
>
>     In looking at the way we define the entitlements of Member
>     Organizations that are also a Consortium in nature, there are a
>     couple of issues that need to be addressed.  They arise from the
>     fact that we allow these Members to appoint four (or more) people
>     to represent them within W3C.  While we say they are there to
>     represent the Consortium we have been experiencing cases where
>     these designated representatives are in fact representing their
>     own interests.  This opens an IP exposure for W3C because we don't
>     have commitments from their employers just from the Consortium. 
>     It also offers a "back door" for large corporations to participate
>     without joining themselves.  The proposed changes, in section
>     2.1.2
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#RelatedAndConsortiumMembers>,
>     attempt to close those loopholes.
>
>     *Clarified the process for continuing work on a specification
>     initially developed under another charter*- 5.2.3
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#CharterReview>,
>     5.2.4 <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#cfp>,
>     5.2.6
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#WGCharter>,
>     6.2.2
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#transition-reqs>.
>
>     When the W3C Patent Policy and Process Documents were drafted,
>     some Members may have assumed that work on a W3C Recommendation
>     would be the product of work under a single Working Group charter;
>     instead, Working Drafts often evolve through multiple Working
>     Group charters. The major uncertainty has often been phrased as
>     "When do Working Groups end?", but in fact concerns the situation
>     where a Recommendation is developed under more than one Working
>     Group Charter.  Many specifications take more than one charter
>     period to move from First Public Working Draft to Recommendation.
>     There is less than perfect clarity on whether a re-chartered
>     Working Group is the same or a different group and trying to
>     clarify that in the Process seems unlikely to reach consensus readily.
>
>
> I'm not sure I agree with how the above sentence is phrased.  
> Ultimately, the document says what it says and clarity could be 
> provided in a court of law (hopefully it never comes to that).  I 
> would rather skip this sentence and resume with the next sentence: 
> "There is a ..."
>
> SZ: The sentence that you are not sure about went out under your 
> signature in the April update to the AC on AB progress on this issue 
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2016AprJun/0176.html.
>

In that case, it must be brilliant ;).  Seriously,

> I just copied that paragraph. I do, however, agree with your point. 
> How about dropping that sentence and fixing the problem with the next 
> sentence by saying,
>
> “There is a longstanding practice of adopting a Working Draft that was 
> published under a previous charter, and continuing to develop it in a 
> Working Group with a newer charter.”
>
> This avoids the issue of discussing whether or not two WGs of the same 
> name are the same or different WGs.
>

LGTM

>
>
>       However there is a longstanding practice of adopting a Working
>     Draft that was published under a previous charter, and continuing
>     to develop it
>
>
> this sentence appears incomplete.
>
>
>     The changes apply to Working Drafts that have had a full exclusion
>     opportunity under a Working Group pursuant to the Patent Policy
>     (i.e., Reference Draft (RD) issued within 90 days of a First
>     Public Working Draft (FPWD) and a Candidate Recommendation (CR)
>     (called Last Call Working Draft (LCWD) in the Patent Policy).
>
>     The changes in this draft cover:
>
>     a)    A change in the W3C Process Document to clarify how work can
>     continue under a new Working Group charter on a Working Draft that
>     has already had a full exclusion opportunity; and
>
>     b)    Suggested improvements in practice to improve the ability to
>     trace the origin of Working Drafts, and their associated Reference
>     Drafts and Candidate Recommendations.
>
>     The most relevant text, currently in section 5.2.6 Working Group
>     and Interest Group Charters, is:
>
>     “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 Adopted
>         Working Draft which will serve as the basis for work on the
>         deliverable
>       * The title, stable URL, and publication date of the most recent
>         Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation
>         <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#last-call>
>         which triggered an Exclusion Opportunity per the Patent Process
>       * The stable URL of the Working Group charter under which the
>         most recent Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation was
>         published.
>
>     The Reference Draft is the latest Working Draft published within
>     90 days of the First Public Working Draft, and is the draft
>     against which exclusions are be made, as 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
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#ref-patentpolicy>].
>
>     The Adopted Working Draft and the most recent Reference Draft or
>     Candidate Recommendation
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#last-call>
>     /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 deemd to be
>     the Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation in the adopting
>     Working Group, and that the Exclusion Opportunity that arose as a
>     consequence of publishing a First Public Working Draft or
>     Candidate Recommendation has finished, meaning any exclusions
>     against those drafts must be made on joining the group, as per
>     section 4.3
>     <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-join> of the W3C
>     Patent Policy <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy> [PUB33
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#ref-patentpolicy>]
>
>     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 Reference Draft or Candidate for
>     which an Exclusion Opportunity has occurred.”
>
>     Other changes are in 5.2.3
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#CharterReview>,
>     5.2.4 <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#cfp>,
>     6.2.2
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#transition-reqs>
>
>     Note:  Except for Section 3.1 of the Patent Policy, there is no
>     explicit statement in the
>
>     Patent Policy that commitments made under the Patent Policy ever
>     expire.
>
Received on Friday, 29 July 2016 20:36:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:38 UTC