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: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 16:34:52 -0400
To: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <da306d0c-59f5-0f60-6eb3-0e880ba2ed1b@w3.org>


On 9/6/2019 5:35 PM, Michael Champion wrote:
> Some additional comments on the deck after consulting with colleagues (in addition to the editorial suggestions on #12 and request to remove or substantially rewrite 22-26 as confusing/contentious given the Everteal proposal):

remove 22-26?!? I'm confused. You supported David and he thought we were 
downplaying the Evergreen proposal too much. He wants to keep it in play 
unless the WGs indicate that it doesn't help for the LS track. Do you 
believe that the needs of the Living Standards are met by the Process 
modifications proposed in Slides 9-15?

> Slide 28:  Another question to WGs is if they are willing to do the extra documentation work to keep track of the substantive changes between PRDs mentioned on Slide 12.  That kind of thing is very tedious (so editors tell me).

Added.

> Slide 29:  The questions to the AC need a lot of work.  The patent policy ones are OK, but most AC reps will defer to their lawyers, so until PSIG weighs in, I'm not sure these are worth calling out for the AC.    The Improving the Process questions are pretty overwhelming even for someone who has followed this closely, and I don't have much hope you'll get much useful input from the AC unless you structure the Q&A.  Maybe ask for a show of hands or an IRC straw poll, don't invite people to come to the mic and ask open ended questions or pontificate.
> 
> I'd be inclined to straw poll on simpler questions that reflect the proposals in the deck, something like:
>   a. Should we streamline Director approval routine/non-controversial  CR updates?
> b. Should we allow a more "living" approach to CR updates on the /TR page?
> c. Should we allow WGs to maintain their errata inline on /TR?
> d. Should we allow "extensible" Recommendations that can add new features without a return to CR?
> e. Do you agree with the Registries proposals presented here?
> f. Do we have to do more than what we proposed today to accommodate the demand for "living" standards?

Still thinking that one. I concur with you that the presentation is 
overwhelming for an AC Rep who didn't follow the conversation in the 
past. But I doubt they can answer all of those questions in the session, 
especially without understanding the dependencies between the questions 
and their impact on the Patent Policy. At best, they'll be able to 
(hopefully) confirm that the direction is the right one (ie modify the 
Rec-track).

Philippe

> Finally, planning on getting through 29 detailed slides and leaving time for discussion in a 40 minute slot is pretty wildly optimistic.  All the more reason to delete 22-26, but additional triage is probably necessary.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
> Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 2:35 PM
> To: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
> Subject: Continuous Development Process TPAC Slides
> Resent-From: <public-w3process@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 2:35 PM
> 
>      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%7C1e2d22aa2dd64d70a02608d730b6b164%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637031433533250228&amp;sdata=BGE30uBE8Jiesqw7uyHlZxf6kC1NN39vTRdkMAO0kXU%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%7C1e2d22aa2dd64d70a02608d730b6b164%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637031433533250228&amp;sdata=Wy3%2FcSfcMN9cSi%2BM1aWNoCKHWi6fLhUmgRvAXVlihEM%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
>      
>      
> 
Received on Monday, 9 September 2019 20:34:55 UTC

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