Review Process

From Music Notation Community Group

Music Notation CG Spec Review Process

This document describes the general process followed by the W3C Music Notation Community Group (MNCG) to review issues raised by group members.


The goals of the process are:

  • Timely discussion, review and resolution of issues.
  • Broad coverage of all significant topics
  • Directing attention first to the highest-priority issues
  • Grounding the discussion in use cases wherever possible
  • Openness, fairness and mutual respect
  • Maintaining momentum for the group's work
  • Keeping good records of arguments and rationales for decisions
  • Avoidance of confusing repetition and duplication


All spec review issues must be filed on the appropriate GitHub repository by a CG member.

Only issues filed on the GitHub repositories maintained by the chairs will be considered for discussion. Issues in other repositories are out of scope.

Process Outline

An issue progresses through the following steps:

Filing: a CG member creates the issue. Issues must identify an aspect of the present specification to be changed, added or removed, and must present or identify a use case and show how the issue affects it. (Issues filed by non-CG members will be closed with a request that the filer join the CG. If the filer joins the CG, the issue can be re-opened and follow the rest of the review process.)

Initial examination: The chairs will look at newly filed issues and close them as duplicates, close them as already resolved, refactor them or request clarification. Those which have been examined will be placed in the "Uncommitted" milestone.

Duplicates and Already Resolved: Issues appearing to be duplicates of existing issues will be closed immediately with a reference to the duplicate issue. Issues that appear to be already resolved will be closed immediately with a reference to the specification, and placed in the "V1" milestone . In case of a mistake, the issue can be further clarified by the creator.

Refactoring: Any issue may be split out into multiple individual issues for clarity by the chairs. This will typically be done early on.

Request for clarification: An issue whose nature or relevance is unclear up front, will be immediately assigned to its creator for clarification, and labeled "Needs Clarification". Issues remaining in this state without progress will ultimately be recommended for closure by the chairs.

Active Review: On a roughly weekly basis, the chairs will identify the highest priority issues for group review and discussion. All such issues will be labeled "Active Review". The chairs will email the group weekly with a reminder of the current list that is in active review. When placing an issue into Active Review, the chairs may recommend a specific resolution of the issue and provide their reasoning.

Review Discussion: Issues in Active Review undergo discussion by the CG, within their respective GitHub issue threads. A discussion period of at least two weeks is expected. The discussion may continue as long as new arguments are being advanced in favor of different resolutions or while additional members contribute to the discussion, in the judgment of the chairs. Discussion of issues on the CG mailing list is discouraged.

Proposed Resolution: Following discussion, the chairs will record a resolution in the issue thread and remove the "Active Review" label. The following outcomes may occur:

  • Inclusion of the issue in the V1 milestone
  • Deferral of the issue to the V.Next milestone
  • Closure of the issue

Pull Request Review: For V1 milestone issues, a pull request is created and the issue is marked as "PR Review".

Final Resolution: The pull request is merged, and the issue is closed.

Reopening: If new arguments and reasons emerge after resolution, in the judgment of the chairs, issues may re-enter Active Review.