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

Re: Continuous Development Process TPAC Slides

From: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 21:15:16 +0000
To: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FF806A4F-43B9-4495-8C0F-0551512EC755@microsoft.com>
Sorry if I haven't been clear, my thinking has evolved as the discussion moved forward, and I've probably confused myself too.  Here's my current thinking

1. There is a strong community demand for some sort of simple living standard model in W3C.  

2. I personally suspect that "Everteal" is as close as we are going to get to a simple living standard model in Process 2020, given the complicated discussions (in the AB, the private calls, and to some extent in the CG)  about how to reconcile a living process and wide review.  So I hope the bullet points on slide 12 talk use the clear term "living" rather than the (IMHO opaque) label "decoupling CR updates from CR review drafts".  I suggest using the language in Elika's Everteal message, which I (and colleagues) quickly understood and agreed might be a viable middle ground between today's W3C process and the WHATWG Living Standard approach (that doesn't use W3C's model of wide review). 

3. Respectfully summarizing the POV that Everteal doesn't take us far enough, and something more like the Evergreen Recommendation proposal is also needed, is fine.  I agreed with David that the language in the deck didn't do that well, especially since the Evergreen proposal was drafted before Everblue or Everteal were on the table.   Likewise we might get feedback that says "WHATWG works well for living standards, W3C doesn't need to change its process, just extend the MoU to allow Recommendations on snapshots of other Living Standards besides HTML and DOM."    If the community prefers that approach to another year of discussion about how to reconcile evergreen standards and wide review, that's OK with me (and some others I've spoken with).

4. While I supported the goals of the Evergreen proposal, I had several issues with its details (e.g. making it a separate track rather than an optional maturity state on the Rec Track, the requirement to  decide at charter time whether to allow the Evergreen option, the WD-like state that isn't called WD). . So, I'm fine with asking whether the current proposal goes far enough to meet the "living" use cases.  I'm fine with mentioning that Evergreen is still in play as an option so long as it doesn't equate "Evergreen" with the specific proposal for a parallel track that I raised a bunch of issues on. 

5. Whatever you do, LEAVE TIME FOR DISCUSSION.  Don't try to cram a year or so worth of diverse thinking into a slide deck, focus on what has rough consensus and needs AC input, and mention (but don't dive deep into) ideas that go beyond the rough consensus.

> 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

Fair enough.  But whatever questions you ask, try to craft and organize them so that they use terms the target audience understands, and are structured in a way that moves the discussion forward, not in multiple directions sideways.  For example, build consensus on the patent policy changes and assume that consensus in subsequent questions, don't pose hypotheticals about what we could do to make the process more continuous if the AC won't change the PP. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 at 1:34 PM
To: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Continuous Development Process TPAC Slides

    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).
    > 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 
    > 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%7C2b063258f6cb443a83de08d735652d1b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637036580980584463&amp;sdata=TXBHFaZ3GtOzE0klhBVpWnnlPSrD4VnRgvvLlHCMoqI%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%7C2b063258f6cb443a83de08d735652d1b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637036580980584463&amp;sdata=VK6BgHmI0utXIgU4li4O42uJTy0prdZD0PFc2LDX%2FfU%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 21:15:41 UTC

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