[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Fwd: Comments on "W3C Process getting bumpy?"
An official response, for folks who are interested. (Yes, Ian said I could share this publicly.) >Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 17:11:03 -0400 >From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w...> >Organization: W3C - World Wide Web Consortium >To: simonstl@s... >CC: ij@w..., w3t-comm@w... >Subject: Comments on "W3C Process getting bumpy?" > >Hi Simon, > >I would like to address your comments on >"W3C Process getting bumpy?" [1], [2]. In the first email, you wrote: > >> In writing it, I found that DOM Level 2 is now a Candidate Recommendation >> with no closing date ('coordination issues'), while the latest drafts of >> both P3P and XML-Signature are no longer Last Call, but are expected to >> move on quickly to CR status. >> >> It doesn't feel like the smooth progression described in the process >> report. I realize that reality is rarely smooth, but it seems like a lot >> for a day or two's news. > >The 10 May DOM CR document doesn't specify an end date for >the CR review period. This is indeed inconsistent with the requirement >of the 11 November 1999 Process Document [4], which states >"The duration is specified as part of the request for advancement. >The duration may range from zero delay (skipped) to one year." >(Actually, one could argue that since the status section doesn't >specify a duration, the default is one year. But that's a >generous interpretation.) > >So strictly speaking, there's a bug in the DOM 2's status >section w.r.t. the process. And yet, it doesn't seem like a crime >since they explain what they're trying to do: > > "A coordination issue has arisen, which necessitates > an extended Candidate Recommendation phase. It will > end when the coordination issue is resolved." > >This is unfortunately more than vague about the precise issue, >but there are probably reasons why the Working Group chose to >say so little. Not specifying an end date is consistent with a >movement towards changing the exit condition process for CR. One of >the proposed changes to the Process Document is that >the WG be required to specify CR exit conditions, and that they should >only advance once they've satisfied them. In this case, there >is no requirement to specify the duration of the CR implementation >period; you are done when you've met your goals. Of course, it's >desirable to suggest a duration for the purposes of setting >expectations, >allowing other Working Groups to schedule their work, etc. > >W3C doesn't publish a new Process Document every day (actually, >the Process Document is republished about every six months) and to >the extent possible, we try to make changes to the Document based on >experience. In this case, our internal process is changing, but >the Process Document has not been reissued yet to reflect that >evolution. In fact, I'm revising the document as we speak. > >I would also note that there is nothing wrong with intervening >Working Drafts between a last call Working Draft and a >Candidate Recommendation. Section 6.2.2 of the 11 November Process >Document [5] says: > > "Once the last call period has ended, all issues raised during the > last call period resolved, and the Working Draft modified if > necessary, the Working Group may request that the Director submit > the document for review by the Advisory Committee as a Candidate > Recommendation. It is possible that comments will cause > substantive changes that require that the document return to > Working Draft status before being advanced to Last Call again." > >Nothing forbids the Working Group from publishing a revision of the >last call Working Draft to take into account changes made as a result >of last call review. A Working Draft is a Working Draft, and the >Working Group can update a Working Draft as often as it wishes. The >rubber hits the road when the Working Group asks to advance to CR. If >the Working Group has not addressed last call comments and not >documented >objections, or if changes have been substantial, the Director may >require that the Working Group go through last call again. There >is obviously some artistry required of the Chair to determine >(and report to the Director) which changes the Working Group considers >minor and which they consider major. I think publishing an intervening >document (as the XML Signature WG did [6]) is good form, in fact, >since it allows people to track the process the Working Group has >made in the resolution of issues raised publicly. > >Feel free to share my comments publicly. I would like to emphasize >that the proposal to change CR exit status has not yet been reviewed >(or fleshed out0 within W3C and there is no guarantee that it will >become part of the official process. > >I hope this helps. If you feel I've not addressed your comments, >please let me know. > >Thank you, > > - Ian > >[1] http://www.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/2000/05/0302.html >[2] http://www.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/2000/05/0304.html >[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-DOM-Level-2-20000510 >[4] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/tr.html#RecsCR >[5] >http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/tr.html#last-call >[6] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xmldsig-core-20000510/ >-- >Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w...) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs >Tel: +1 831 457-2842 >Cell: +1 917 450-8783 *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ ***************************************************************************
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|