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

Agenda: Process Document TF Telcon on Monday, 10 October, 2016

From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 19:53:14 +0000
To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BY1PR02MB11147AFE2F95903982538A0FAED80@BY1PR02MB1114.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
The call is on Monday, 10 October, 2016 at 15:00-16:00 UTC<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=W3C+Process+Document+Task+Force+Meeting&iso=20160411T08&p1=224&ah=1>

Webex Information is on our Mail Archives internal-w3process@w3.org<mailto:internal-w3process@w3.org> (see separate e-mail to this list)
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/internal-w3process/2016Jun/0000.html  (member only accessible)

For residents of other (typical) time zones the start times were:
Pacific:  8:00
Eastern US: 11:00
Central Europe: 17:00
Japan: 24:00

The purpose of these meetings has been to agree on the resolution of open issues, close them where possible or assign actions to move toward closure.


1.      Review results of discussion of proposed Process 2016 at the AC Meeting at TPAC 2016
An overview of the proposed changes<https://www.w3.org/2016/Talks/tpac2016-process-Zilles.htm#(1)> was presented at the AC Meeting. Three issues were presented:

a.      Should the following sentence be included in the Process, "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 document that has had a Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation published." There was a useful discussion<https://www.w3.org/2016/09/22-ac-minutes.html#item01> highlighting the plus and minuses of including the provision. The AC was polled and 15 Members supported removal of the provision and no Members supported its inclusion.

b.      Can a "Rescinded Recommendation" be "restored"? It was noted that we have never had a Rescinded Recommendation and that if we had, it would be possible to create a new Working Group which based it work on the Rescinded work, although commitments for new patent licenses for essential patents on the Rescinded Recommendation would have expired. Noting that starting a Working Group is not a simple task, it still seemed like an adequate solution to a non-problem (at this time) and it would (likely) not be more difficult than getting a favorable AC Review of the proposal to un-rescind (i.e. restore) the Recommendation. Therefore, no process to restore a Rescinded Recommendation was thought necessary for Process 2016.

c.      A change in Process 2014 made the process for doing Editorial Updates to Recommendations more burdensome. The issue was how to insure that proposed editorial changes are in fact just editorial. The current process requires the Working Group proposing the changes to approve that changes without objection. Since they, the technical experts, are most likely to be able to detect if changes affect conformance and, therefore, are not editorial, it was proposed that this requirement is sufficient and that a further AC Review (currently required by Process 2015 (and 2014) was unnecessary. There was no objection from the Members present at the TPAC AC Meeting to deleting the AC Reivew requirement.

2.      Review the draft Disposition of Comments on the August 3 Process Document.

(in progress)

3.      Any other topics

Steve Zilles

Chair, W3C Process Document Task Force
Received on Sunday, 9 October 2016 19:53:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:41 UTC