Re: Review of Process 2020

On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 04:20:38PM +0900, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>     2. I still don't like "Extensible".  Several alternatives were proposed. 
>     What is our process to bikeshed the name?
> 
> Ideally, I'd like more than 3 people involved... but switched it to Expandable
> for now.

It sounds a bit too close to "expendable" to me :D
Maybe we could indeed ask for more suggestions. I don't
think I have good ones: "elastic", "organic"
Ever-something seems a better idea, but we'd need to find the something.

>     3. 5.2.6.  There has been discussion in the W3Process CG that it might make
>     more sense to allow every WG to decide what to designate as an Extensible
>     REC rather than having this done in the Charter.  While I don't feel
>     strongly, I felt that this opinion was getting greater traction from
>     reviewers.  Taking that path might simplify some of the Process document
>     text.
> 
> The goal of placing a constraint on non-Expandable RECs is not to better fit
> the WG's work-mode, but to make a promise to the outside world that a REC will
> not gain new features.

It won't be always easy to determine whether the REC will or will not be
extensible at charter time. The best solution would be to have a MAY:
the charter MAY indicate that the deliverable is an extensible REC,
otherwise the WG will determine later.

I like the subsequent proposal to merge and only have 1 kind of REC,
because since the start of the development of the evercolored process
I've seen a risk of getting a "low-class REC" compared to the other.


[...]

>     9. 6.2.  I think we have a capability now for Documents to come in at CR
>     level (i.e. CR = FPWD for those documents).  I don't know if that is clear
>     enough in the process doc.  We are using it, for example, for DOM and HTML.
> 
> Hmmm. Interesting problem. I don't think there's anything in the process that
> allows for that. FPWD is supposed to come before CR, and the Patent Policy
> seems to have this as an assumption (not sure anyone has evaluated the
> consequences of breaking that assumption).

It's been used a couple of times, and the PP FAQ mentions something
about the exclusion opportunity length, IIRC (the FPWD opportunity 
covers the CR one).

>     10. 6.2. CRUD.  I thought we were going to work on the acronym.
> 
> Lol. Done.
> s/CR Update Draft/CR Udate/
> s/CR Review Snapshot/CR Snapshot/

I find this distinction still rather confusing (just my 2 cents).
The goal of having it is unclear in the document.

>     11. 6.2. Rescinded CR.  I'm not clear on why we need that.  We seem to have
>     too many states already.  Can we just call it a Note?
> 
> No, because rescinding something has implications for patent obligations. If we
> adopt the updated Patent Policy which applies obligations to CRs, we will need
> to be able to rescind CRs as well as RECs.

Making assumptions on a future PP is a bit speculative. If you start
with a simpler process and complicate it only if the PP needs it, we
might end up with a simpler process as a result.

Received on Monday, 2 December 2019 07:56:42 UTC