W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > August 2019

Re: EverTeal

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 12:38:03 -0700
To: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <163eb6d4-f02e-0c0f-df73-380320e4a745@inkedblade.net>
On 8/30/19 7:09 AM, Philippe Le Hégaret wrote:
> Overall, I do have to admit that I like this proposal.
> Some thoughts below.
> On the pro side:
> - allow direct publications in /TR of the latest drafts agreed on by the WGs
> - push patent commitments earlier than REC
> - It does introduce a new CR/PRD state but doesn't introduce completely new ones
> - assumes we can change the patent policy (cf AC WBS)

Technically, we can do this without changing the patent policy. The difference 
is that each CR/PRD results in patent promises rather than patent licenses.

(Remember the current PP doesn't tie calls for exclusions to CR, it ties them 
to LCWD, and the Process defines what qualifies as a LCWD. We can define that 
only CR/PRD snapshots are LCWDs.)

> - preserves some of the current model:
>    * wide reviews costs is kept on the WGs to assert that a wide review was 
> done properly
>    * transition request checks for wide reviews and formal objections, while 
> not creating a Director bottleneck
>    * avoid requiring a new set of toolings, with continuous diffs or 
> annotations (but does not prevent those either).
> On the cons side:
> - Evergreen allows for PRDs sooner than CR, so it could still take a few years 
> before the patent commitments are settled

Currently FPWD is a PRD, so it would make sense to have explicit PRDs in this 
same manner in WD as well--so that improvements to the spec 1yr after FPWD get 
the same coverage as FPWD.

> - Everblue allows for re-publishing RECs with informative materials that 
> haven't been fully vetted yet, thus allowing more rapid iteration of the RECs

I would also like to pull down the errata annotation system to CR as well, 
fwiw. Just didn't want to add that to the email in case it was too many things 
to think about. :) It would allow the option to annotate proposed changes, if 
the WG is not yet sure they want to fold them into the mainline text and want 
to get more review first. E.g. there are some changes CSSWG makes that we 
agree on what we want to do, but we're not ready to finalize it until someone 
proves its possible.

Received on Friday, 30 August 2019 19:38:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:52 UTC