Chapter 7 Revisions

25 Nov 2013

These minutes are public. Some links may be visible only to the W3C Advisory Board.


See also: IRC log


Ralph Swick, Coralie Mercier (scribe), Jeff Jaffe, fantasai, Steve Zilles
Steve Zilles

Contents and summary

<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?

Sending e-mail listing issues raised during chapter 7 Last Call

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 -- Managing the transition to a new TR cycle


<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 -- What to do with the Status section?


<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.

Issue-55 -- AC Meetings should not be scheduled to overlap All WG meetings

Steve: Now on the raised issues.
... Art raised 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 -- If LC and CR are combined, Director's Calls can be excessive overhead


<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 -- Change Recommendation to Standard


<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?


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 -- How is satisfying "widely reviewed" encouraged/ensured?


<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]


<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

New raised issues to consider

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

Wide-review from groups outside the W3C

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

Avoid using the term "publishing" for Editor's Drafts

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)

Clarifying that implementation experience is for specification being progressed

<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.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Ralph draft an updated proposal for issue-39
[NEW] ACTION: SteveZ to draft such a message
[NEW] ACTION: SteveZ to ping chaals on text for issue-51
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013/11/27 11:15:16 $