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

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

From: J. Alan Bird <abird@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:12:49 -0400
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <757f07fa-2fb9-701c-aec0-ee870b561d70@w3.org>
regrets - it's Columbus Day - MIT is closed and I'm taking the day off

On 10/9/2016 15:53, Stephen Zilles wrote:
> 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.
> Agenda:
> 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#%281%29> 
> 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 b.Can a "Rescinded Recommendation" be "restored"?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 have never had a Rescinded Recommendation and that if we had, it would 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 Rescinded work, although commitments for new patent licenses for 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 essential patents on the Rescinded Recommendation would have expired.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.
> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/wiki/Draft_Process_2016_Comments
> (in progress)
> 3.Any other topics
> Steve Zilles
> Chair, W3C Process Document Task Force

J. Alan Bird
W3C Global Business Development Leader
office +1 617 253 7823  mobile +1 978 335 0537
abird@w3.org   twitter @jalanbird
Received on Monday, 10 October 2016 01:13:03 UTC

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