Re: New draft

Thanks Chaals.

I did one more quick-ish top-to-bottom read.  From that I have the
following small suggestions:


7.1 W3C Technical Reports, second paragraph:

  "If /+the Director determines that+/ W3C member review
   /-agrees that-//+supports+/ a specification
   /-should be-//+becoming+/ a Standard..."

The important change here is the first one; not removing the final
decision from the Director.  The other changes are just grammar to make
the sentence less awkward.


7.1.2 Maturity Levels, CR, second Note:

  "Candidate Recommendations /-will normally be accepted as-/
  /+are expected to eventually become+/ Recommendations."

Reduce the risk of misinterpretation of this sentence as "the outcome is
predetermined."


7.2.3.1 Wide Review, first sentence:

   "... by the /-p-//+W3C P+/rocess."

Explicit reference.  (Lowercase "process" includes an aggregation of
existing and future best practices, etc. which may eventually lead to
more precision.)


7.5 Proposed Recommendation, a Working Group, 3rd bullet:

   "... other than by Advisory Committee representatives /+acting in
   their formal AC representative role+/ ..."

I understand the intent of this exception to be that an issue raised by
an AC Rep as part of formal AC Review is meant to be a comment to the
Director, which the Director may discuss further.  An AC Rep may also be
a participant in a Working Group or may submit a comment to the Working
Group as part of public review.  Such comments should not be treated
differently just because the commenter has another formal role.


7.6 W3C Recommendation, first sentence:

  "/+The decision to advance a document to Recommendation is a

[http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/acreview.html#def-w3c-decision
W3C decision].+/  In addition to meeting ..."

This formalism from the current Process section 7.4.5 binds to the
formal definition of AC Review, appeal, etc.


7.8 Publishing a Working Group or Interest Group Note, final sentence:

  "Working Group Notes/-, only for W3C Recommendations-/."

This additional statement is unnecessary here and it creates the risk of
future conflict if the Patent Policy is revised to cover other things.

-Ralph

On 2/20/2014 5:55 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> there is another draft dated 20 February. The only change is to add an
> explicit requirement for the director to announce the publication of a
> revised Candidate Recommendation.
> 
> As far as I know there are no outstanding comments or issues, so I hope
> we will resolve to present this draft to the AB as our recommendation
> for a new Chapter 7.
> 
> The draft is https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/7b98193bc9d9/tr.html
> and the changelog is at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/
> 
> cheers
> 
> Chaals
>

Received on Monday, 24 February 2014 13:59:38 UTC