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

Re: Section 6.9 with Ian Jacobs' suggested edits

From: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 09:11:25 +0100
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-id: <C5525409-EC1B-44F4-B576-87283D24DEC9@mac.com>
To: Stephen Zilles <steve@zilles.org>
Hi Steve

I think there are a number of problems here.

> On Sep 20, 2016, at 12:16 , Stephen Zilles <steve@zilles.org> wrote:
> Because Ian Jacobs in his comments suggested a large number of edits to section 6.9, I have attempted to apply all his suggestions (that were accepted) and that result is below.
> I have several concerns with this text, partly because the suggestion to allow Rescinded Recommendations to be restored was not accepted.

Yes.  I fear that a rescinsion is a state one can exit from: all the IPR owners are believing that no new licenses will be issued.  I am not at all sure that once they believe that, that a simple reversal can happen.

> My concerns are:
> 1.     In the first paragraph, I find “undo” to be too unclear. Perhaps it should read, “necessary to change the status of a Recommendation” and then change, “severity of new advice” to “severity of new status advice”
> 2.     In the Rescinded Recommendation bullet, change, “and is extremely unlikely to restore it.” To “and does not intend to restore it to Recommendation status.”
> 3.     In the Obsoleted Recommendation bullet, change, “restore it” to “restore it to Recommendation status”
> 4.     To respond to Florian’s comment on “superseding” a recommendation, add the following bullet as the second bullet in the list following “W3C might obsolete a Recommendation when:”
> ·       A subsequent version has superseded this Recommendation, or

No, the mere existence of a newer version does not mean that we would mark the older ones as obsolete, I think; this is normal progress. We usually simply have a link to ‘latest version’.

> Steve Z
> 6.9 Obsoleting or Rescinding a W3C Recommendation
> From time to time, W3C may find it necessary to undo a Recommendation. W3C uses a similar process but different terminology to distinguish the severity of new advice.
> -        "Rescinded Recommendation": W3C no longer recommends this technology and is extremely unlikely to restore it.
> -        "Obsoleted Recommendation": W3C no longer recommends this technology but there is a reasonable chance W3C could restore it.

I am not at all sure I like either of these two phrases, and as noted, I think we should be silent about reversing rescinsion.

> W3C might rescind a Recommendation when:
> ·       W3C concludes it contains many errors that conflict with a later version, or

Really? This is a new idea…why would we withdraw new licensing in this case?

> ·       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
> ·       Industry has not adopted the technology and future adoption seems unlikely.
> W3C uses the same process for obsoleting or restoring a Recommendation. W3C only rescinds or obsoletes 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 obsoleting or rescinding 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 obsolete

comma missing

> rescind, 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 must formally address the dissent at least 14 days before publication as an Obsolete or Rescinded Recommendation.
> 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.
> 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 Wednesday, 21 September 2016 08:12:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:40 UTC