Re: Continuous Development Process TPAC Slides

>
I still don’t understand why getting a Contribution License from WG members fixes anything in the W3C context, where WG members grant a full-spec. license.

As I understand it, WG members only grant a full spec license at the Rec stage. A contribution license protects implementers of ideas that don’t survive in the final Rec or specs that never reach Rec

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: singer@apple.com <singer@apple.com> on behalf of David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 3:49:55 PM
To: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Continuous Development Process TPAC Slides

Hi

Some comments

The title says “continuous standard development” and so one might expect simple Living Standards, i.e. Evergreen, to appear. But Slide 3 immediately diverts into improving the Rec Track, i.e. Everblue. Overall, I think this slide deck does not present simple Living Standards well or as a reasonable direction and choice. Instead it presents Improved Rec. Track as the primary effort and Evergreen as some sort of half-thought-out dead alternative.

I thought we had agreed to separate Registries as a separate, simpler, case, and we’re presenting them separately. Yes, I think the “continuous review” model used by Living Standards (notifications on issues and changes, and the ability to comment) is the right model also for Registries, but even then, Registries are simpler — being atomic, it’s much easier to back out a specific change. So many of the mentions of Registries should be in the Registries report.

The Goals slide is generally applicable. I’d suggest it go much earlier.

The Design Intentions does not say what the AB has repeatedly said: that a simple Living Standards process and improving the Rec. Track are not in opposition, and we could do either or both.

The Proposal Part is only a proposal for Rec. Track improvements, not for simple Living Standards.

I still don’t understand why getting a Contribution License from WG members fixes anything in the W3C context, where WG members grant a full-spec. license.

Then we get to the “Additional alternate track?” slides, which says “We are not supporting”.  I have no idea who “we” is. It also implies it’s dead (“originally tried”).

> On Sep 3, 2019, at 14:35 , fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>
> Dear Process CG,
> Plh and I have prepared some slides to go over the various Process proposals for continuous development. You can find the latest draft here:
>  Slides: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fpresentation%2Fd%2Fe%2F2PACX-1vSY6cySWt81srZWN_GWl4LMCFSJOw4dYeO-Tlx8Fj_50P5oc0IgzGXFGrZzT3t_cktR9pjDVfNfqmLh%2Fpub%3Fstart%3Dfalse%26loop%3Dfalse%26delayms%3D3000&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cmichael.champion%40microsoft.com%7Ce1981146efca40eecdcc08d7325379f7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637033207301380656&amp;sdata=VsxkFcN5T5XBskipVdQFdFloi8p4l2B3m1mQ3Nobtbc%3D&amp;reserved=0
>  Editor: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fpresentation%2Fd%2F1jKiPIrbIH6RdJE15nYWA-xr1DDVuYAeurpfhu6Dug-c%2Fedit%23slide%3Did.g5e27cbf49c_0_0&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cmichael.champion%40microsoft.com%7Ce1981146efca40eecdcc08d7325379f7%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637033207301380656&amp;sdata=RpJzkcyCwW2uUJILNYYX%2Fezg%2FmFuKA0Tv0Uy56kHtVQ%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
> Please send us any comments you have. We look forward to presenting at TPAC:
>   9:10 Wed during the Plenary as a presentation
>   ?:?? Wed as a break-out discussion session
>  15:00 Thu at the AC meeting as presentation + discussion session
>
> ~fantasai
>

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.