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

Re: Continuous Development Process TPAC Slides

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:18:48 -0400
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <a8843c1c-0a44-5aab-0cb5-748fb19751f6@w3.org>

On 9/9/2019 2:36 AM, fantasai wrote:
> On 9/5/19 3:49 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> We are using the same slides for the Plenary presentation, so we need 
> a summary of the proposed registry changes to go with that. For the AC 
> we'll be skimming over the registries info; but it's still good to 
> mention that it's part of what we're working on. The improvements all 
> work together to solve the use cases, so we want to make sure the AC 
> can see the big picture.
>
>> 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've reworked that slide a bit, results are here:
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/e/2PACX-1vSY6cySWt81srZWN_GWl4LMCFSJOw4dYeO-Tlx8Fj_50P5oc0IgzGXFGrZzT3t_cktR9pjDVfNfqmLh/pub?start=false&loop=false&delayms=3000#slide=id.g5ee5921594_0_6 
>
> or 
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1jKiPIrbIH6RdJE15nYWA-xr1DDVuYAeurpfhu6Dug-c/edit#slide=id.g5ee5921594_0_6
>
> Contents of the slide:
>
> <slide>
> Design Intentions
>
> The AB resolved to address the continuous development on an 
> accelerated basis;
> W3C Process Community Group has explored several approaches:
>
> * Creating an experimental new Process for spec development
>   (Alternative Track)
>   -> Can radically change the Process in all aspects
>   -> Avoids altering the REC track
> * Improving the W3C Recommendation Track Process directly
>   -> Recommendation Track has problems, so let’s fix them!
>   -> Incremental improvements as a set of ideas that could be
>      adopted individually or together.
>   -> Building on existing Process avoids undiscovered pitfalls
>      of a brand new process track.
>   -> Avoid confusing community with a different, parallel track
>
> Note: Fixing the W3C Recommendation track while experimenting with a 
> simple continuous process are not in opposition
>
> </slide>
>
> Discussing both options seems to make the Evergreen track proposal fit 
> a little better into the presentation... Lmk if you have further 
> comments.

Thanks, Fantasai, this helps.  David, does this address your issue?

>
>> 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.
>
> It grants some protection for early implementations, and it gives us 
> parity with WHATWG and W3C CGs, which both use them prior to full-spec 
> licensing taking effect.
>
> Note, the fact that this was part of the WHATWG policy seems to be the 
> main reason why PSIG included it in their Evergreen Patent Policy draft.
>
>> 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”).
>
> That slide was added at the request of Jeff, we've now modified the 
> wording to be less judgemental. :)

Sorry.  I was just rattling off the concept of the slide and I was not 
sufficiently thoughtful about my choices of words.


>
> ~fantasai
>
>
Received on Monday, 9 September 2019 13:18:54 UTC

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