Re: EverTeal

Thanks.  A few additional comments.

On 11/4/2019 7:21 PM, fantasai wrote:
> On 11/4/19 8:48 AM, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>
>
>> 2. As a corollary to (1), we might consider separate explainers for 
>> different folks.  I'm not sure that each of the following categories 
>> require different explanations, but some of the stakeholders we have 
>> include:
>>
>>   * AC Reps
>>   * Attorneys
>>   * Contributors
>>   * Active WG participants
>>   * Editors (especially LS style Editors)
>>   * Chairs
>
> I don't think separate explainers is the answer here, because that 
> would either require a lot of duplication or result in a lot of 
> missing context.
>
> But if there are questions or concerns that don't have a 
> straightforward explanation, we should add it. For example, LS is 
> addressed in its own “Maintaining a Living Standard” section; 
> Horizontal Review is addressed in its own section; Patent Policy has 
> its own section; etc. What other sections do you think need to be added?

I agree that we should not have separate explainers.  But after the 
entire thing is explained, it might be useful to have short sections for 
a subset of the above.  For example (but the below is too short):

For AC Reps and Attorneys: Please note that there will be slight changes 
in when there are Calls for Exclusions issued...

For Contributors: Please note that you will need to get contributor 
licenses...

For Editors: Please pay special attention to the added flexibility to 
work with the WG and develop a Living Standard...

For Horizontal Reviewers: Please consider extended guidance you might 
want to give WGs for CRSs in Section 6.x.y.z...

For Chairs: Please master the new empowerment that is given to your 
group and utilize the features to keep specs up to date...

>
>
>
>> 4. What's New/CR Updates.  This section should have a bullet which 
>> explains the purpose - namely to have a current version on TR even 
>> while it takes a while to get to REC.
>
> Good point. I added “This allows the WG to continuously keep its 
> official specification up to date with the latest WG thinking between 
> CR snapshots.” Let me know if that seems adequate.

It's adequate for now.  It does seem a bit lost: a second sentence in a 
bullet under a subsection of a section; but we have time to deal with that.


>> 6.  PP.  I thought we also were introducing Contribution licenses?
>
> Good point, I forgot that one. :) Fixed.

I don't see that in the What's New section.  Maybe you put it elsewhere.


>
>> 7. I generally liked the ET Explainer. Thank you.  As per points 4 
>> and 5 above, I do think that we can intermix more of the "motivation" 
>> with the mechanical description of "how to".
>>
>> You start that when you have sentences such as "To facilitate review 
>> of changes, all phases allow informative annotation of proposed 
>> changes."  But I think we can have better explanation of the 
>> motivation.  For example:
>>
>> "Proper spec development allows continuous availability of proposed 
>> changes to the community.  The current W3C process inhibits that 
>> because once a spec reaches CR (and especially once it reaches REC) 
>> it becomes very hard to change.  This demotivates the community; 
>> actually reduces effort on keeping specs up to date; and does not 
>> give developers an accurate view of the WG's thinking or of 
>> implementations.
>>
>> Process 2020 introduces the possibility of including informative 
>> annotation of proposed changes in W3C documents and publishing them 
>> on /TR.  This will solve a host of problems.  It will allow CR-level 
>> documents to be updated without complicated approvals, and will allow 
>> greater agility in updating RECs.  At the same time, it still ensures 
>> that nothing becomes a W3C REC without ultimately going through the 
>> rigors of wide review, horizontal review, implementation experience, 
>> AC review, and Director review.
>>
>> These enhancements to annotation and publishing provide a Living 
>> Standards capability as a native capability of the W3C Recommendation 
>> Track.  For some specs, where patent commitments are desired, but the 
>> label of W3C REC is not considered important - the agility provides a 
>> method to have a Living Standards approach without ever reaching the 
>> Recommendations level.
>>
>> In order to build these capabilities into the REC track we have made 
>> the REC track a bit more complex.  There are additional potential 
>> states to the REC track.  But for a WG taking a spec through the REC 
>> track, there is not much more complexity.  The new states are quite 
>> similar to the existing states.  And many of the transitions between 
>> states can proceed more automatically (in some cases without Director 
>> approval) as part of a general exercise of increasing agility."
>
> This is great, thanks! I've added a Motivation section to the top, 
> largely from what you've written here. I didn't intermix it with your 
> summary of changes, though, because I didn't want to duplicate content 
> more than about twice... and I wanted to keep the explainer easy to scan.

+1.  Thanks.


>
>> 8. If you choose to add an extended motivation section as exemplified 
>> in point #7 above, some of the other verbiage for ET might be 
>> tailored a bit to support the extended motivation section.
>
> I like this idea... haven't executed it yet, though. :)

Plenty of time.


>
> ~fantasai
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2019 01:33:30 UTC