- From: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:28:29 +0200
- To: "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org>, "Wayne Carr" <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, "Stephen Zilles" <szilles@adobe.com>
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 03:39:19 +0200, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chaals McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru] >> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 4:10 PM >> To: Jeff Jaffe; Wayne Carr; public-w3process@w3.org; Stephen Zilles >> Subject: Re: [Issue-101] Replacement for the other of the diagrams in >> the >> Process document >> >> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:50:21 +0200, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> >> wrote: >> >> > From: Jeff Jaffe [mailto:jeff@w3.org] >> >> > On 10/8/2015 1:55 PM, Wayne Carr wrote: >> > >> >> >> On 2015-10-06 21:18, Jeff Jaffe wrote: >> >> >>> On 10/6/2015 11:50 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote: >> >> >>>> See below >> >> >>>> From: Jeff Jaffe [mailto:jeff@w3.org] >> >> >>>> Steve, >> >>>> >> >>>> In CR, if there are substantial changes we stay in CR; but if there >> >>>> are very substantial changes >>>>we go back to WD. >> >>>> >> >>>> Have we defined the difference between substantial changes and very >> >>>> substantial changes? >> >>>> >> >>>> [SZ] No, IMO it is up to the WG to decide whether the changes would >> >>>> take a document out of CR. >> >> This is not correct. Revising a CR requires approval from the director, >> so >> attempting to change it in a way that did not satisfy the director - >> for example >> because there is no evidence that the changes proposed have received >> sufficient review - is what would effectively require a new WD. >> (The director may also explicitly require the group to go back to WD, >> but that >> seems a rarer case). >> >> >>>> The most obvious reason would be that there need to be major >> >>>> implementation changes and, therefore, the document is not really >> >>>> ready for implementation (the anachronistic definition of CR) >> >>>> anymore. If the changes involve implementation tweaks and the >> >>>> participants agree that they should be made, then those are >> >>>> substantive, but not “very substantive”. >> >> The question is not whether the participants agree that the changes >> should be made, it is whether they can convince the director that the >> changes have been appropriately reviewed. [scenarios of how it works] >> In terms of how we express that in a diagram, I understand the >> difficulty Steve faced in finding the right term, because it doesn't >> leap to my mind either. The rough scenario is "change that needs >> further review", but that scrimps on details and bulks up the image >> already... >> >> >>>> If you think putting in some text like that would be useful, it >> >>>> could be proposed >> >> >>> I wasn't making a proposal. I was just trying to make sense of the >> >>> terms in the proposed diagram. Your explanation doesn't make it >> >>> clear enough (at least for me). >> ["substantive change" has implications for revising a Rec in particular] >> > The diagram differentiates between substantive change and very >> > substantive change. I don't see any such definition in the process >> > document. >> > >> > Perhaps you are arguing that substantive change is "3 Corrections" and >> > very substantive is "4 New features". If that is the intent, I would >> > prefer to use that language in the diagram. >> >> That would work for me as an approximation, although it isn't perfect >> either. But then, this is an illustrative diagram. The people who rely >> on it *without* reading the linked text (and in an update I'll fix the >> links so the labels really link to the right bit in the document - >> along with some necessary improvements to make the thing sufficiently >> accessible) are always going to have a bit of a bad time. >> They are also probably always going to exist. >> >> > [SZ] Two points: >> > >> > 1. The goal, posited by David Singer, was to have the labels on the >> > arrow indicate the trigger condition for the transition. For the >> > transition from PR back to CR, the trigger is “substantive change” I >> > do not believe that we should change that label. >> >> Agreed. >> >> > 2. For the transition from CR back to WD, I tried to create a label >> > which would reflect a trigger because the Process Document only says >> > that “Return to Working Draft” is a possible next step for a CR, but >> > does not give any “trigger” for that step to be taken. Given that >> > observation, perhaps the label should be , “Substantive Change and >> > Working Group Decision”, implying that it is up to the WG to decide >> > whether the document should go back to WD. >> >> Well, the WG can decide that, but the trigger is "don't get permission >> to revise the CR in place, and don't want to go forward without the >> showstopping revision(s)". > > [SZ] How about the following for the label on the CR back to WD arrow: > "substantive changes & > Directors approval to > stay in CR not given" Again, seems pretty wordy for a quick reminder diagram. "Director requests further work"? [snipped stuff on a different subtopic] cheers chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Friday, 9 October 2015 08:29:09 UTC