Re: W3C Process Intro ("Process 101") (was EOWG: Agenda for 4 August 2006 Teleconference)

EOWG Participants,

First, a bit of history:

For the last 2 years or so, EOWG starts any new or significantly revised document with a "requirements" analysis. We first agree on the requirements before doing any significant work or discussion on a document. It is often helpful to have a "rough concept draft" when discussing the requirements, as it helps see how the requirements impact the actual document. The rough concept draft is just intended to show a general idea of what might go in the document and/or how it might be organized. It is an early version where usually nothing has been agreed on, and most of the wording is likely to change, including, and almost almost always, the title. <grin>

EOWG formed a joint ask force with WCAG WG in June 2006. (acronyms used: "2SMTF" & "EOW2 TF") The "WCAG 2.0 Materials Support Task Force Work Statement" that was approved in EOWG and WCAG WG teleconferences is at:
	http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2006/wcag2eowg_tf

EOWG Task Forces develop drafts, that are then discussed and approved in EOWG. As always, Task Force mailing lists, meeting minutes, document drafts, etc. are public.

The 2SMTF/EOW2 Task Force agreed that one of the first documents to work on is "Process 101", and it is listed in the EOWG Current work as item #5 at:
	http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/#deliv

Which brings us to today.

* The Process 101 Requirements is the main item for EOWG to discuss this week and, once acceptable, approve. It is:
	http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-process
As stated in the EOWG agenda, the Task Force has refined the Requirements doc, and agreed it is ready for EOWG.

Because we hope to complete this document quickly, I also included in the agenda a few questions on the rough concept draft. The Task Force has not done much with this yet. Please note it is a "ROUGH concept draft" and "the writing is not at all refined yet". Therefore, it is best to spend any review and comment only on the high level, and not the detailed writing.

Alan wrote:
> * Explain why W3C uses the term "Recommendation" rather than
>   "standard".
> * Explain that there are also "Notes" that go through a different
>   process but are integrated with the recommendations.

These points are not in the rough concept draft because they are not in the requirements doc. So the question is whether or not they should be included in the requirements doc. Let's discuss on the list, and on the teleconference this week, if those points should be added.

My quick reactions:
- We want to keep this doc as short and focused as possible.

- *Why* W3C uses "Recommendation" rather than "standard" I think is out of scope. However, making it clear that W3C Recommendation = standard I think is in scope to cover efficiently -- that is, not have a long paragraph explaining it, but just something like: "W3C Recommendation (Standard): ... W3C Recommendations are similar to the standards published by other organizations."

- I think we probably should include something about Notes; however, I'm a little concerned about expanding the document.

EOWG, Comments?

Best,
~Shawn


Alan Chuter wrote:
> 
> This is the first time I have seen this draft [1]. Reading the title 
> ("WAI  Standards in the W3C Process") and the introductory paragraph I 
> expected  to learn about how WAI intervenes in the process to ensure 
> that  accessibility issues are addressed, but that apparently isn't the  
> intention.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/w3c-process
> 
> It seems that the immediate need is for a short-term document for now 
> to  inform about what's happening with WCAG 2.0 that can over time 
> evolve into  a long-term one about the progress of WAI documents in the 
> process. Or  perhaps more simply, some kind of "lastest news" note at 
> the beginning  saying that there is currently misunderstanding over WCAG 
> 2.0 and the  process, that can hopefully soon be removed when WCAG 2.0 
> becomes a  recommendation.
> 
> Here are some suggestions for the wording of the introductory 
> paragraph.  Basically, this is to explain what wasn't clear to me on 
> first reading:  about the two sections and how they relate to one 
> another, and to clarify  that the WAI Recommendations are listed to show 
> where they are presently  in the process:
> 
> "The first section of this document provides a brief overview of the  
> process that W3C documents go through in becoming a standard. The 
> second  lists W3C Recommendations completed and in progress in WAI 
> Working Groups,  and their current progress through the process 
> described in the first  section (at the time this document was last 
> updated)."
> 
> And a couple of other ideas:
> 
> * Explain why W3C uses the term "Recommendation" rather than
>   "standard".
> 
> * Explain that there are also "Notes" that go through a different
>   process but are integrated with the recommendations.
> 
> best regards,
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 2 August 2006 14:21:33 UTC