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

Re: Continuous Development Process TPAC Slides

From: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:49:02 -0400
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5f3d1b42-f2b1-3f6b-143f-49f2632b2328@w3.org>


On 9/5/2019 6:49 PM, David Singer wrote:
> 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.

Our intent was to keep EG in play if we didn't satisfy the needs of the 
WGs who wanted a more Living Standards approach.

In the master versions of the slides (not reflected yet on the W3C 
site), I updated the motivations for the alternate track to make it more 
apparent:
 
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1jKiPIrbIH6RdJE15nYWA-xr1DDVuYAeurpfhu6Dug-c/edit#slide=id.g60769e0fa9_3_0

> 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.

I meant to sync up with you on that. Following our conversation, I 
removed the slides mentioning Registries, to keep it separate and 
avoiding confusing the AC.

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

I didn't move it yet. Still mulling this one over.

> 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.

I added:
[[
Fixing the W3C Recommendation track while experimenting with a simple 
continuous process are not in opposition
]]

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

Clarified.

> 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.

This was inherited from the Evergreen patent policy, which also has 
contribution license. I left it as-is for now in the presentation but we 
should come back to it obviously later.

> 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”).

This slide was updated to better reflect the intent.

Philippe

>> 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://docs.google.com/presentation/d/e/2PACX-1vSY6cySWt81srZWN_GWl4LMCFSJOw4dYeO-Tlx8Fj_50P5oc0IgzGXFGrZzT3t_cktR9pjDVfNfqmLh/pub?start=false&loop=false&delayms=3000
>>   Editor: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1jKiPIrbIH6RdJE15nYWA-xr1DDVuYAeurpfhu6Dug-c/edit#slide=id.g5e27cbf49c_0_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.
> 
Received on Friday, 6 September 2019 19:49:07 UTC

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