Re: Action-140: Obsoleting a recommendation, one more minor fix

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 9:28 , GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com> wrote:
> 
> David,
>  
> Thanks for that complete proposal.
> Note that in case B), the individual might not have access to the chair list – which is not public posting authorized, to my knowledge – and it should be clarified what ‘announcing to the public’ means.

I wanted to, but I must admit it’s not clear.  I think announcing to the W3C community means at least the chairs list, and I assume to the world at large means some sort of newsletter.

Note that we’re in a situation where we don’t know of anyone using it, so more targetted communication is hard.

> We may clarify this by suggesting individual to delegate to someone being able to post on the appropriate mailing list (W3C staff, I guess).

This is a formal step, so the team is taking it.

> I let you finding the perfect English wording for that J
>  
> Regards,
> Virginie
>  
>  
> From: singer@apple.com [mailto:singer@apple.com] 
> Sent: jeudi 23 juin 2016 14:01
> To: W3C Advisory Board <ab@w3.org>; Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
> Subject: Action-140: Obsoleting a recommendation, one more minor fix
>  
> The AB realized that we might, just possibly, make a mistake and obsolete something that we weren’t aware is actively used; or we might obsolete something and then later it starts getting traction and being used. It should be possible to reverse obsoletion, though we hope and expect that this will be rare.
> 
> The attached is a revision which 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;”
> 
> Yes, I am aware that other parts of the text could be made more complex and more explicit about reversal, but I don’t think it’s worth it: we can surely work out what the intent of the text is in the rare case of reversal.
> 
> Yes, I am aware that we might end up with a case where, with the new knowledge, a decision to Obsolete would not pass, but the decision to reverse obsoletion also does not pass.  However, I think making the reversal process “reversal happens if it can be shown that obsoletion would have failed” is too complex to describe easily. I hope the community ‘does the right thing’ and we don’t get into this case.
> 
> 
>    
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 
> This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
> E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
> Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a transmitted virus.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.