This is a proposed amendment to section 6.2.3.1 of the W3 Process, incorporating discussions on issue #130 of the W3 Process repository, and feedback gathered through the AB priority task 2019.

Requesting Wide Review

This document is about a proposed W3C process change. Here are instructions on how to request wide review.

Process Change

6.2.3.1Wide Review

The objective of wide review is to seek feedback on a specification from the entire web community, including the general public. The goal is the early identification and resolution of issues in order to make the specification as robust as possible before it becomes a Recommendation.

Wide review should be sought continuously as a specification matures, to allow different parts of the web community to iterate on requirements, problems, and solutions.

When the First Public Working Draft of a specification has been published, the Team MUST ensure that a notification is sent to public-review-announce@w3.org.

As a specification progresses along the Recommendation Track, Working Groups SHOULD solicit review from some or all of the following stakeholders:

The Working Group responsible for the specification;
The horizontal review groups (see 6.2.3.2);
The Working Groups and organisations documented in the Working Group's charter or with which the Working Group has relevant liaisons;
The general public;
Other relevant standards organizations.

The Director MUST consider evidence of wide review before approving transitions. Appropriate evidence should include:

Documented requests for wide review;
Documented discussion and resolution of issues raised during wide review.

6.2.3.2 Horizontal Review

The objective of horizontal review is the early identification and resolution of issues in order to make sure W3C specifications are robust in terms of accessibility, internationalisation, privacy, security, and technical architecture.

Horizontal review should be sought continuously as a specification matures, so that accessibility, internationalisation, privacy, security, and technical architecture are considered throughout.

As a specification is being prepared for, and moved along the Recommendation Track, the group responsible for the specification MUST solicit a horizontal review from each of the horizontal review groups (in many cases, submitting a self-review to the reviewing group will satisfy this requirement).

The Horizontal Review Groups are

Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group
Internationalisation Working Group
Privacy Interest Group
Technical Architecture Group

When the First Public Working Draft of a specification is published, the Team must ensure that a notification is sent to horizontal-review-announce@w3.org.

Transition to Candidate Recommendation must not be requested unless either the Horizontal Review groups have been given at least 60 days notice to review the specification or the Horizontal Review Groups have completed their reviews.

Horizontal Review Groups should be notified of all new and significantly revised sections of a specification that has already been reviewed. Note: failure to do so may result in the transition to Candidate Recommendation being delayed.

When a Working Group requests horizontal review:

The horizontal review group MUST acknowledge receipt of the request and indicate whether the review will be conducted;
The horizontal review group SHOULD review the specification and raise relevant issues within the agreed timeframe;
The requesting Working Group MUST acknowledge receipt of each issue, then give each issue due consideration before providing an appropriate response;
If the Working Group and the horizontal review group do not agree, they SHOULD make a determined effort to find agreement;
When the Working Group requests transition of a specification, evidence of this process MUST be provided and any issues that remain unresolved MUST be indicated.

The Director MUST consider evidence of horizontal review before approving transitions. Appropriate evidence SHOULD include:

Documentation that the Horizontal Review Group did not consider a review to be necessary; or
In the event that "no review" is cited, documentation that at least 60 days has elapsed since the review request was made to the Horizontal Review Group; or
Documentation that the Horizontal Review Group raised no issues; or
Documentation of both:
- The list of issues raised by the Horizontal Review Group that were resolved
- The list of issues raised by the Horizontal Review Group that remain unresolved, including evidence that a determined effort was made to find a resolution in each case