Re: Revised Section 6.9 based on Ian Jacobs re-write and comments thereon

I think this still needs work.

> On Oct 9, 2016, at 20:36 , Stephen Zilles <> wrote:
> The following revision of the (revised) section 6.9 of the Process Document was prepared based on the discussion at the TPAC AC Meeting and comments by Steve Zilles, David Singer and Ian Jacobs on Ian Jacobs’ prior proposed text for this section.
> The main changes are:
> 1.      Being  consistent about the ordering in which “rescind, obsolete and restore” are mentioned when they are used;
> 2.      Change “necessary to undo a Recommendation” to “necessary to change the status of a Recommendation”;
> 3.      To change the definition of a Rescinded Recommendation to indicate that there is no process to restore it;
> 4.      To give the restoration process equal status to those for rescinding or obsoleting a Recommendation and to indicate that only Obsoleted Recommendations can be restored; 
> 5.      Moved “contains many errors that conflict with a later version” as a cause for action from rescinding to obsoleting because rescinding an earlier version may remove patent protection from the later versions. With the addition of obsoleting, rescinding is no longer necessary in this case.
> It is believed that these changes are editorial; there are no changes to the actual process used for these three cases (rescinding, obsoleting or restoring).
> Steve Z
> 6.9 Obsoleting or Rescinding a W3C Recommendation
> From time to time, W3C may find it necessary to change the status of a Recommendation. W3C uses a similar process but different terminology to distinguish two types of change:
> -        "Rescinded Recommendation": W3C no longer recommends this technology and does not intend to restore it to Recommendation status.
> -        "Obsoleted Recommendation": W3C no longer recommends this technology but there is a reasonable chance W3C could restore it to Recommendation status.

I think these bullets say something different from the following explanations, and I don’t think I agree with them. Can we simply delete them?

> W3C might rescind a Recommendation when:
> ·       W3C discovers burdensome patent claims that affect implementers and cannot be resolved; see the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33] and in particular section 5(bullet 10) and section 7.5.
> W3C might obsolete a Recommendation when:
> ·       W3C concludes it no longer represents best practices, or
> ·       This version contains many errors that conflict with a later version, or
> ·       Industry has not adopted the technology and future adoption seems unlikely.
> W3C might restore an Obsoleted Recommendation when:
> ·       W3C finds the Recommendation is being used and is not conflict with later versions, if they exist.

I would prefer to say that we no longer believe the Recommendation should be considered obsolete.  (If you keep the text, insert ‘in’ after ‘with’).

> W3C uses the same process for rescinding, obsoleting or restoring a Recommendation. W3C only rescinds, obsoletes or restore entire Recommendations. To rescind or obsolete some part of a Recommendation, W3C follows the process for modifying a Recommendation.
> For the purposes of the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33] an Obsolete Recommendation has the status of an active Recommendation, although it is not recommended for future implementation; a Rescinded Recommendation ceases to be in effect and no new licenses are granted under the Patent Policy.
> The Director may recommend rescinding, obsoleting or restoring a Recommendation. The Director must begin a review of a proposal to obsolete, rescind, or restore a Recommendation when requested to do so by any of the following:
>  • The Working Group who produced, or is chartered to maintain, the Recommendation.
>  • The TAG, if there is no such Working Group
>  • Any individual who made a request to the relevant Working Group as described above, or the TAG if such a group does not exist, to obsolete, rescind, or restore a Recommendation, whose request was not answered within 90 days
>  • 5% of the members of the Advisory Committee
> For any review of a proposal to rescind, obsolete, or restore a Recommendation the Director must:
>  • Announce the proposal to all Working Group Chairs, and to the Public.
>  • indicate that this is a proposal to rescind, obsolete, or restore a Recommendation
>  • identify the Recommendation by URL.
>  • publish a rationale for the proposal.
>  • identify known dependencies and solicit review from all dependent Working Groups
>  • solicit public review
>  • specify the deadline for review comments, which must be at least four weeks after the Director's announcement
> and should
>  • identify known implementations
> If there was any dissent in Advisory Committee reviews, the Director must publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C and the public, and mustformally address the dissent at least 14 days before publication as an Rescinded or Obsoleted Recommendation or republished as a Recommendation.

mustformally space missing

> The Advisory Committee may initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal of the Director's decision.
> An Obsolete or Rescinded Recommendation must be published with up to date status. The updated version may remove the main body of the document. The Status of this Document section should link to an explanation of the Obsolete or Rescinded status as appropriate.
> A restored Recommendation must be published with up to date status that notes that this Recommendation had temporarily been Obsoleted but is now, once again, recommended.
> Once W3C has published a Rescinded Recommendation, future W3C technical reports must not include normative references to that technical report.
> Note: W3C strives to ensure that any Recommendation -- even obsoleted or rescinded --  remains available at its original address with a status update.

Dave Singer

Received on Monday, 10 October 2016 14:21:38 UTC