These minutes are public. Some links may be visible only to the W3C Advisory Board.
See also: IRC log
Steve Zilles will write an announcement that the Last Call Period is closed and provide a list of the Issues that were identified.
Ralph Swick will draft a proposal, based on input gathered during a TPAC2013 breakout.
Steve Zilles will seek text from Charles McCathie Nevile to resolve this issue. The Task Force also expressed interest in seeing a proposal from fantasai on a new layout of spec status section.
Steve Zilles will write back to Charles McCathie Nevile (chair of the Revising the W3C Process CG) that this isn't a process issue.
The Task Force opened this raised issue and noted that it should be moot when the edits to distinguish re-publishing a CR draft (which for non-subtantive changes does not require the Director's Approval) and re-starting CR (which is necessary for substantive changes) which starts the IPR review clock for the substantive changes and does require the Director's approval (but not necessarily a Director's phone call - that is up to the Director to decide) are done.
The Task Force defered this issue as the focus of the current set of Process Changes has been to facilitate Agile Standards Development within the Process. This proposed change would do nothing to further agility. Therefore the TF proposed to return this Issue to "Raised" for consideration in some future revision of the Process Document.
Discussion of this issue, both in various fora (ac-forum and public-w3process) and that W3C Process Task Force has shown that there is a desire for
One possible name for this signal could be "Functionally Complete".
This would mean that the Working Group thought it had completed its
work and was asking the reviewers for confirmation that that is true.
The use of this signal would be optional and its use would not either
be necessary nor sufficient to meet the criteria for "Wide Review".
One possible name for a section that indicates what to review could be,
"Review Considerations" This section SHOULD be present at the beginning
of the document and should highlight sections of the document that are
most appropriate for review. This is different from the list of changes
since the last version, but it may link to that list as appropriate.
Steve Zilles read from his notes a few comments that Larry Masinter made verbally.
The Task Force accepted to raise the issue of how are groups
outside the W3C, but with dependencies on a specification notified
of a pending LCCR?. ISSUE-56:
How are groups outside the W3C, but with dependencies on a
specification notified of a pending LCCR?
The Task Force accepted to raise the issue that to reserve the term "publish" for drafts done by action of the Working Group or a parent entity such as the W3C, it is suggested that the term "publish" in the last paragraph of section 7.1 be changed to "make available". An alternative would be, "make available public". ISSUE-57: Avoid using the term "publishing" for Editor's Drafts.
The Task Force accepted to raise the issue to clarify that implementation experience is for specification being progressed. ISSUE-58: Clarifying that implementation experience is for specification being progressed.
<koalie> Previous meeting (2013-11-15)
<scribe> scribenick: koaliie
SteveZ: agenda had open issues 39 and 51
... and raised issues
... 50, 52 and 54
[missing chaals and Mike Champion]
SteveZ: Any other issues need to be discussed?
Jeff: yes
<jeff> [missing Zakim]
<Ralph> [missing RRSAgent]
Jeff: The deadline for AC comments on the
document
... is 27 November per https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2013OctDec/0083.html
... Around that, I think a couple of questions arise
... Most WGs have a cadence associated with deadlines, discussions
... Should an e-mail go out with thank you note for issues
... and telling we're not accepting other issues?
... or should we send a reminder e-mail?
... Wondering about proper etiquette.
... Another point
... Discussion last week and on ac-forum. In most cases, other than AB
members, no one has raised formal issues
... We raise formal issues on people's behalf
... E-mail racap'ing the issues?
SteveZ: A combination of what you said
... on 28 Nov we say the comment period is closed and list the issues we
recognise
... based on the comments we saw on ac-forum and w3process lists
... and use that as a trigger for people to say we missed such and such.
Jeff: Thanks, that's responsive to my points.
SteveZ: The normal procedure is we begin work on
the day of the deadline and comments dribble in
... they will be most likely processable
... we're moving toward consensus.
... except around "wide review"
... although we've made progress.
<scribe> ACTION: SteveZ to draft such a message
<trackbot> Created ACTION-19 - Draft such a message [on Steve Zilles - due 2013-12-02].
action-19: on 28 Nov we say the comment period is closed and list the issues we recognise based on the comments we saw on ac-forum and w3process lists, and use that as a trigger for people to say we missed such and such.
<trackbot> Notes added to action-19 Draft such a message.
SteveZ: I had exchanges with with Larry Masinter
... I seem to recall Ralph took an action relevant to issue-39
issue-39?
<trackbot> issue-39 -- Managing the transition to a new TR cycle -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/39
Ralph: We had a breakout but I didn't draft a message to the Chairs
<Ralph> action-15?
<trackbot> action-15 -- Ralph Swick to Draft message to chairs asking them to think about and prepare to share thoughts on the transition plan -- due 2013-11-04 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/15
Ralph: that was action-15
<Ralph> ISSUE-39: TPAC breakout discussion record http://www.w3.org/2013/11/13-w3process-minutes.html#item02
<trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-39 Managing the transition to a new TR cycle.
Ralph: I'm happy to put out a proposal
<trackbot> Created ACTION-20 - Draft an updated proposal for issue-39 [on Ralph Swick - due 2013-12-02].
<Ralph> ACTION: Ralph draft an updated proposal for issue-39
issue-51?
<trackbot> issue-51 -- What to do with the Status section? -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/51
<Ralph> Friday 15-Nov AB Process Revision discussion record
[whether or not to action someone who isn't on the call?]
<scribe> ACTION: SteveZ to ping chaals on text for issue-51
<trackbot> Created ACTION-21 - Ping chaals on text for issue-51 [on Steve Zilles - due 2013-12-02].
SteveZ: I don't think there is controversy on that one, we just need to see text to resolve it.
Steve: Now on the raised issues.
... Art raised issue-55
issue-55?
<trackbot> issue-55 -- AC Meetings should not be scheduled to overlap All WG meetings -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/55
<Ralph> raised [not yet open] issues
SteveZ: I'd put this in the "not a process issue" category, certainly not an issue for Chapter 7
Ralph: I agree
... I also doubt it's a process issue.
... But the community can followup on it.
SteveZ: I'll notify Art.
Jeff: Art raised this as a W3C Process issue
Ralph: I recommend Steve writes to Chaals that this isn't a process issue
Jeff: And you can copy Art
SteveZ: I'll do that
issue-50?
<trackbot> issue-50 -- If LC and CR are combined, Director's Calls can be excessive overhead -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/50
SteveZ: I believe that this was partly a
misunderstanding
... our intent was that wide review was done prior to CR. A second piece is we
clarified that we do not require a Director's call for changes to CR
... so, my proposal is to switch this from raised to open
... and copy the text from our discussion with a proposal that this would be
closed by clarifying the repeated entry to CR step in the process.
Ralph: It's in scope for this TF, I accept it as
an open issue
... I'm not sure we have final text from the Friday discussion, but we're
close
<Ralph> action-17?
<trackbot> action-17 -- Charles McCathie Nevile to Update the draft to make a distinction between publication and process state changes -- due 2013-11-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/17
SteveZ: Chaals took an action to update the draft
and make a distinction between publication and process state changes
... The piece that wasn't entirely resolved in my mind, was whether a
substantive change required some of the steps to be repeated
... I believe it was clear nobody thought it was necessarily necessary to have
a full Director's call
... the presumption is there could be, but it's likely to be given without a
Director's call
Ralph: That rings a bell
... The process document itself should not require the Director @@@
issue-54?
<trackbot> issue-54 -- Change Recommendation to Standard -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/54
SteveZ: Change rec to standard
... I would open this and my personal feeling is that based on discussion,
it's too big a deal to do with just a revision of Chapter 7
<Ralph> open issue-54
SteveZ: and that it would slow down the process of getting the chapter 7 out
<Ralph> issue-54 opened
SteveZ: I think we have mixed whether this would
be a good thing or not
... and more discussion is needed, on a broader basis.
Jeff: The reason we focused on chapter 7 is that
we were interested in a more agile process
... There are other issues that we can't deliver on yet
... it's consistent with that to defer this issue, as it doesn't do anything
for agility.
SteveZ: Right
... any disagreement?
[none]
SteveZ: I'll leave is open for one more meeting and then we can close it and we can see what the propose closure is.
issue-52?
<trackbot> issue-52 -- How is satisfying "widely reviewed" encouraged/ensured? -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/52
SteveZ: We reached some kind of consensus by establishing there might be a label that optionally can be used by a WG
<Ralph> reopen issue-52
<trackbot> Re-opened issue-52.
SteveZ: to indicate they've reached a certain
level of completeness
... to encourage review
... I'm not attached to a particular label.
... There should be an explicit requirement for a section or something, where
the WG would put in what they expect is suitable in terms of review for this
particular draft.
<Ralph> +1
Ralph: I'd like to see a proposal from Elika for a layout, I was impressed by her proposal for the Status bits
Jeff: I don't have other concerns
... If we're going to be creating this new marker,
... I think we'll need verbiage in the section describing wide review
... to say what we mean by the marker(s)
... The marker is like a best practice; you can achieve wide review without
the marker
... and that may not be enough, even without the marker
SteveZ: By saying it's an optional signal to tell
reviewers they believe the document is complete, that would be sufficient
... [looks for suggestions from Larry Masinter]
[fantasai joins]
issue-54?
<trackbot> issue-54 -- Change Recommendation to Standard -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/54
SteveZ: It was suggested that if you [fantasai]
could make available a pointer to the draft section, then I can add to the text
... for the issue list
fantasai: OK
SteveZ: Thank you
... Ralph made the point that's clearer to people what's being discussed.
that's for issue-51
... Back to Larry Masinter's comments
... he raised 5 points
SteveZ: for wide-review, he would like to make
sure we reach out to other SDOs
... in the definition of wide review
Jeff: At the charter level we ensure horizontal
review and so on
... as a friendly amendment since "relevant" is in the eye of the beholder, we
should anchor "relevant" in the groups listed in the charter
SteveZ: I take the point that this can go in the charter and list dependencies
SteveZ: At the end of section 7.2,
... there is something about editor's draft. He was concerned about the word
"publish" wrt editor's drafts
... and would prefer "make available"
... on the basis that he wanted to distinguish the WG work from the editor's
work.
... That's generally not a problem except in one WG I am aware of.
fantasai: I think that once we have a better
publication process, this becomes less of an issue because we'll have live
drafts on TR and editor's drafts won't be necessary
... at that point, given the WG will be able to push things out, the copy on
/TR will be what everyone can refer to.
... once /TR is updatable easily, the editor's draft becomes scratch space and
won't be relevant to most people.
<Ralph> +1 to Elika's framing of frequently-updated /TR and editor's draft == scratch space for collaboration
fantasai: "make available" instead of "publish" sounds good.
<fantasai> (note, that was steve's suggestion)
<SteveZ> Larry Masinter Would like, in Implementation Considerations, an assertion that the implementations implement the current specification.
<Ralph> 7.2.3 Implementation Experience
SteveZ: if I accept Jeff's point that
dependencies is where liaising with other SDOs is mentioned,
... is that generic enough?
<SteveZ> Larry suggest in Wide Review, change "review by the general public" to "review by the general public, especially the sub-communities thereof that are affected by this specification."
Ralph: about implementation experience, I speculated that Larry may be looking at second bullet of 7.2.3
SteveZ: Yes, I think that's the point.
Ralph: And if so, that's an easy edit to make.
Jeff: One more point
<Ralph> [e.g. "are there independent interoperable implementations /+of the current specification+/?" ]
Jeff: The other wide review best practice (with other W3C WGs), should we harmonise other best practices?
SteveZ: We need text for functionally complete
... I'll write the text so people can see it.
... The other thing is I'd like to require a review consideration piece which
the WG will use to identify which in a particular WD is important to review
... functionally complete is what you would put in that section
... Thanks all.