- 1 Process document reference
- 2 Issues Summary
- 3 Completely or Partially Addressed issues
- 3.1 #9 Should participants in Working Groups be allowed to represent more than one organisation?
- 3.2 #17 Should the Process define Business and Community Groups?
- 3.3 #67 Clarify the handling contributions from guests, non-w3c members, and non-WG members
- 3.4 #146 Can't update process as if it were a Rec
- 3.5 #163 Representativity on the TAG
- 3.6 #172 Does a spec need to be Rec-ready to be a CR?
- 3.7 #207 What are the requirements to update a CR?
- 3.8 #176 The term "Affiliation" is used in several places but not strictly defined
- 3.9 #190 Increase membership of the AB
- 3.10 #191 Expand and clarify the 'personal capacity' aspect of AB/TAG participation
- 3.11 #83 Written notification?
- 4 Non-addressed issues
Process document reference
The official W3C Process is documented here:
The current editor's draft is here:
View a diff between current Process and the editor's draft:
The list of issues that were considered or are being worked on for Process2019 are tagged in Github with the label process2019candidate (some of them are now marked closed, as the Process CG believes it has completed action on them).
This is a mix of substantive and editorial issues. Editorial issues, and editor's actions to improve editorial quality outside the issues, are not detailed here. A summary of the motivation and action taken for substantive issues follows.
The follow-on questions for the few issues that have them are separately listed after the summary of changes.
Completely or Partially Addressed issues
We allow one person to represent more than one organization as long as (a) both organizations are members of the working group and (b) the person discloses this to the working group appropriately.
We inserted a link to the process for Business and Community Groups, but leave them separately defined as they are usable by non-members.
The process now requires the team to seek an IPR commitment from non-members of a working group who make contributions. Features cannot be accepted without such a commitment; we make a judgment call on fixes.
The process contained some old, outdated, statements about how the process itself is updated.
The process said that Member organizations could have at most one seat; but we allow non-Member election to the TAG. We clarify it's only one person for any given organization (except, implicitly, the team, of course).
Process 2014 introduced a phrase that said that Candidate Recommendation are expected to be acceptable as Recommendations, when of course there is still work to do between CR and PR. This is clarified to state that the text has to be as well written, technically consistent, complete, etc. as a Rec.
We clarify that an update to an existing CR can improve that CR even if there are still issues (and hence, the replacement text would not have been acceptable as an initial CR if the issues had been known at that time).
There are strict rules on not having, for example, two people with the same primary affiliation elected to some bodies, but affiliation was not defined. It now is.
Recent workload, and the change to the voting, suggested that the AB could usefully increase in size. These changes together make this increase but make it soft (rather than increasing for 9 to 11, we increase to "at least 9 and at most 11").
(Minor) clarification of what this means.
(Minor). We changed "written notification" to say it has to be recorded.
There are other issues that are raised, but for which discussion and resolution is not yet complete, and hence they currently expected to be handled (if at all) in a future revision, possibly as a result of greater CG involvement.