- From: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 12:33:22 +0200
- To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>, Advisory Board <ab@w3.org>
On 7/23/2025 11:30 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote: > Thanks Philippe. As a first pass, I think that's quite reasonable, and > I'd support landing that in the short run, so that we have something > ready to go as the new Process gets rolled out. > > However, I think we should also do a second pass soon after, for a few > reasons: > > * some of the language seems quite outdated to me, and it would be > better to bring it up to speed with current practices Got an example of such outdated language? I stumbled on the mention of the document license myself but chose not to look at it for now. After all, the submitter can always re-license their work under different terms anyway. > * I think it would be useful to distinguish which bits are remainders of > the (new) Process, and which bits are additional requirements/ > expectations (now) imposed by the Team on its own authority. That way, > when someone wants to make this document evolve, it's easier to tell > apart what can be changed as long as the Team agrees from what is > anchored by the Process. Well, since we're moving away from the Process, I'm not sure if having the distinction matters in the long run. We will always have the copy of 2023 process available in any case. Similar to the charter template, we'll need to be careful in how we evolve the document and inform the AC about changes. > * Given that this is now Guide text, and not Process text, I think there > are quite a few places where we'd be better off rephrasing away from > RFC2119 language. agreed. I merged your proposals. > I'll be adding suggestions to that effect in the Google Docs. They're > not meant to be blocking, so if you want to land the text as is, that's > fine by me. At the same time, if you think some of these suggestions are > uncontroversial improvements, feel free to take them in right now. As > for the rest, I'd expect to send them as a PR against the first version, > once landed. Merci Florian, Philippe
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2025 10:33:27 UTC