Bug 16481 - Establish a feature freeze - no adding of new features based on bug or editor's discretion, without prior WG approval
Summary: Establish a feature freeze - no adding of new features based on bug or editor...
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: working group Decision Policy (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC Linux
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Maciej Stachowiak
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-03-22 17:04 UTC by Sam Ruby
Modified: 2012-04-24 04:49 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments
Patch for feature freeze (1.81 KB, patch)
2012-04-10 03:42 UTC, Maciej Stachowiak
Details | Diff
patch v2 (2.59 KB, patch)
2012-04-10 17:59 UTC, Maciej Stachowiak
Details | Diff
patch v3 (1.38 KB, patch)
2012-04-10 18:03 UTC, Maciej Stachowiak
Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Sam Ruby 2012-03-22 17:04:01 UTC
Outline of a proposal: once we reach that point, features can only be added to or removed from the specification with prior concurrence of the Working Group, in one of the following forms:

1) A Working Group Decision on a tracker issue, whether a contested decision by survey or a consensus decision on a sole provided Change Proposal.

2) A Call for Consensus of at least one week's duration (longer near or during holiday periods), citing a bug that requests the feature addition/removal and describes the change in reasonably clear terms. Such a Call for Consensus may be initiated by the Chairs, or by the Editor of the relevant specification. Any objection to such a CFC would require escalation to an issue.
Comment 1 Paul Cotton 2012-04-05 18:21:07 UTC
(In reply to comment #0)
> Outline of a proposal: once we reach that point, features can only be added to
> or removed from the specification with prior concurrence of the Working Group,
> in one of the following forms:
> 1) A Working Group Decision on a tracker issue, whether a contested decision by
> survey or a consensus decision on a sole provided Change Proposal.
> 2) A Call for Consensus of at least one week's duration (longer near or during
> holiday periods), citing a bug that requests the feature addition/removal and
> describes the change in reasonably clear terms. Such a Call for Consensus may
> be initiated by the Chairs, or by the Editor of the relevant specification. Any
> objection to such a CFC would require escalation to an issue.

I would propose that "the point" be at the beginning of the next HTML5 Last Call (ie Last Call 2)
AND
I would propose that we modify the decision policy to use the proposed approval model in 2) for ALL Last Call 2 bugs.

/paulc
Comment 2 Maciej Stachowiak 2012-04-10 03:10:06 UTC
Let's keep this bug strictly about a feature-freeze against editor-driven or bug-driven changes. Other related suggestions are covered by:

bug 16674 - Feature discouragement in issue process - can use "too late to add features" as a technical argument in a counter-proposal

bug 16675 - Switch to a review-then-commit model for spec development
Comment 3 Maciej Stachowiak 2012-04-10 03:42:26 UTC
Created attachment 1110 [details]
Patch for feature freeze

The diff applies the suggested policy starting with Last Call (which means it would take effect right away), and leaves the old policy in place for pre-LC review.
Comment 4 Sam Ruby 2012-04-10 15:54:25 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)

> Editors are free to simply reject feature requests rather than follow this process.

This sentence needs to be removed or reworded.

One way in which it can be read is the editors have the power to block features without providing any rationale or recourse.

The simplest fix is simply to remove this sentence.  What remains is a simple statement that there are two ways to get new features in: a WG Decision as a a result of an issue, or a WG Decision as a result of a Call for Consensus.

If it is felt that some form of this sentence needs to remain, the "rather than follow this process" part needs to be replaced with a description of the process that is to be followed.
Comment 5 Maciej Stachowiak 2012-04-10 17:49:13 UTC
Sam and I discussed this and we think a reasonable solution is to remove the second bullet.
Comment 6 Maciej Stachowiak 2012-04-10 17:59:53 UTC
Created attachment 1115 [details]
patch v2
Comment 7 Maciej Stachowiak 2012-04-10 18:03:24 UTC
Created attachment 1116 [details]
patch v3