From Data on the Web Best Practices
Timetable and checklist for the Best Practices deliverable
This is a working page for the Data on the Web Best Practices working group. It may be subject to change/revision at any time.
Overview
Detailed timetable and checklist
W3C Technical Report Development Process
| Milestone / activity |
Target date(s) |
What needs to be done
|
| 1. Editor's draft |
Starting NOW |
This is the working draft, not necessarily stable and subject to change.
|
| 2. First Public Working Draft |
24 Feb 2014 |
This is a signal to the community to begin reviewing the document.
- Record the group's decision to request advancement. This may not have full consensus.
- We should encourage early and wide review.
- We should revise the document following the feedback.
(From http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr )
|
| 3.Second Published Public Working Draft |
25 June 2015 |
This is a signal to the community to begin reviewing the document. The plan is to focus on comments from more targeted audiences.
- Record the group's decision to request advancement. This may not have full consensus.
- We should encourage early and wide review.
- We should revise the document following the feedback.
(From http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr )
|
| 4. Third Published Public Working Draft |
25 Oct 2015 |
This is a signal to the community to begin reviewing the document. The plan is to focus on comments from more targeted audiences. This is effectively the Last Call (which is no longer in the W3C process).
- Record the group's decision to request advancement. This may not have full consensus.
- We should encourage early and wide review.
- We should revise the document following the feedback.
(From http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr )
|
| 7. Transition to Candidate Recommendation |
December or 15 Jan 2016 latest |
- Resolution by the Working Group to request the transition.
- Notification of W3C working groups with dependencies that a Last Call is coming.
- Request for the transition meeting, to include:
- Record of the Working Group's decision to request the transition
- Record of important changes to the document
- Evidence that the document satisfies the Working Group's requirements
- Evidence that dependencies with other groups are met (or not)
- Evidence that the document has received wide review
- Evidence that issues have been formally addressed
- Objections
- Implementation information
- Patent disclosures
(from http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html )
|
| 8. Call for Implementations (Candidate Rec period ends) |
March 2016 |
|
| 9. Call for review of a Proposed Recommendation (Transition to Proposed Rec) |
15 May 2016 |
- Request for transition, which asks the Working Group to:
- Record the group's decision to request advancement.
- Provide public documentation of all changes (both substantive and minor) to the technical report since the previous step. A substantive change (whether deletion, inclusion, or other modification) is one where someone could reasonably expect that making the change would invalidate an individual's review or implementation experience. Other changes (e.g., clarifications, bug fixes, editorial repairs, and minor error corrections) are minor changes.
- Report which, if any, of the Working Group's requirements for this document have changed since the previous step.
- Report any changes in dependencies with other groups.
- Show evidence of wide review.
- Formally address all issues raised about the document since the previous step.
- Report any Formal Objections.
(from http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#transition-reqs )
- Additionally, the Working Group has:
- Shown that each feature of the technical report has been implemented. Preferably, the Working Group SHOULD be able to demonstrate two interoperable implementations of each feature. If the Director believes that immediate Advisory Committee review is critical to the success of a technical report, the Director MAY accept to Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation even without adequate implementation experience;
- Satisfied any other announced entrance criteria (e.g., any included in the request to advance to Candidate Recommendation, or announced at Last Call if the Working Group does not intend to issue a Call for Implementations).
(from http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfi )
|
| 10. Review of a Proposed Recommendation |
15 June to 15 July 2016 |
- The announcement begins a review period that MUST last at least four weeks.
- During the review period, the Working Group requests endorsement and support from Members (e.g., testimonials as part of a press release).
(from http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfr )
|
| 11. Publication of a Recommendation |
30 July 2016 |
The Director publishes a W3C Recommendation when satisfied that there is significant support for the technical report from the Advisory Committee, the Team, W3C Working Groups, and the public. The decision to advance a document to Recommendation is a W3C decision.
(from http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#rec-publication )
|
