--- a/tr.html Tue Feb 04 21:59:52 2014 +0400
+++ b/tr.html Tue Feb 04 22:12:13 2014 +0400
@@ -49,16 +49,16 @@
<hr> </div>
<div class="noprint">
<div class="navbar">
- <p>This is an intermediate revised draft proposal to replace the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html">current
+ <p>This is a draft proposal to replace the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html">current
chapter 7 of the W3C process document</a> with a more effective W3C
Specification life cycle following the meeting of the W3C Advisory
Board's Chapter 7 Task Force on 3 February 2014. As foreshadowed at
that meeting and in email to the W3Process Community Group, this draft
re-establishes a Proposed Recommendation phase, and clarifies the
requirements for revising a Candidate Recommendation.</p>
- <p>This introductory session (before the chapter title below) will be
+ <p>This introductory section (before the chapter title below) will be
removed when this chapter is re-incorporated into the full process
- document, as per issues 60-64.</p>
+ document.</p>
<p>An initial version was first proposed to the W3C Advisory Board on 13
May 2013 as a possible replacement for the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html">current
chapter 7 of the W3C process document</a>, and a <a href="http://yadi.sk/d/Zikwkr385JG8f">subsequent
@@ -73,22 +73,27 @@
process for such changes</a>, subject to the resolution of <a href="https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/39">ISSUE-39</a>.</p>
<p>I am grateful to the W3C Advisory Board, the W3C Process Community
Group, Art Barstow, Robin Berjon, Wayne Carr, Marcos Cáceres, Elika
- Etimad, Fantasai, Ivan Herman, Ian Hickson, Ian Jacobs, Jeff Jaffe,
- Chris Lilley, Ralph Swick, Anne van Kesteren, Steve Zilles, and many
- people I have forgotten to acknowledge for suggestions, comments and
- discussions that helped me sort out my thinking, and to Ora Lassila
- for the original version of the image that illustrates the normal
- progress of a W3C Recommendation-track document. </p>
+ Etimad, Fantasai, Daniel Glazman, Ivan Herman, Ian Hickson, Ian
+ Jacobs, Jeff Jaffe, Chris Lilley, Ralph Swick, Anne van Kesteren,
+ Steve Zilles, and many people I have forgotten to acknowledge for
+ suggestions, comments and discussions that helped me sort out my
+ thinking, and to Ora Lassila for the original version of the image
+ that illustrates the normal progress of a W3C Recommendation-track
+ document. </p>
<p>Please send comments on this document to, or participate in, the <a
href="http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/">W3C Process Community
Group</a>. Issues related to this proposal are recorded in that
group's issue tracker using the product "<a href="https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/products/1">Document
Lifecycle (chapter 7)</a>"</p>
- Major changes:
+ <h4> Major changes: </h4>
<ul>
<li>New requirements that Working groups <em class="rfc2119">should</em>
- document known implementation and expected next steps for all
- transitions</li>
+ document known implementation and <span class="rfc2119">must</span>
+ document expected next steps for all publications </li>
+ <li>New requirement that Working groups <em class="rfc2119">should</em>
+ publish abandoned work as a W3C Note</li>
+ <li>Recognition that Interest Groups <span class="rfc2119">may</span>
+ publish W3C Notes</li>
<li>If W3C closes a Working Group, they <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
republish its unfinished work as Notes. </li>
<li>Implementation requirements for passing beyond Candidate
@@ -99,20 +104,18 @@
<li>Instead of relying on a Last Call publication for adequate review
there is a requirement for a Working Group to demonstrate "<a href="#wide-review">wide
review</a>", while leaving them to achieve this as they see fit.</li>
- <li>Last Call and Candidate Recommendation have been collapsed
- together. Some of the requirements are therefore enforced earlier in
- the process.</li>
<li>There is a stronger emphasis (without creating new formal
requirements) on getting review and testing implementation as early
as possible. How to do this is left to Working Groups to determine.</li>
- <li>Proposed Recommendation is no longer a separate step. (This may be
- reversed, per <a href="https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/84">ISSUE-84</a>)</li>
+ <li>Last Call and Candidate Recommendation have been collapsed
+ together. Some of the requirements are therefore enforced earlier in
+ the process.</li>
<li>Advisory Committee review now begins at the same time as Candidate
- recommendation, and ends 4 weeks after the Working group has
- provisional approval for a Request to publish as a W3C
+ recommendation, and ends 4 weeks after publication as a Proposed
Recommendation. </li>
- <li>The Director is required to address AC review comments <strong>publicly</strong>,
- 2 weeks <em>before</em> publication of a Recommendation.</li>
+ <li>The Director is required to address dissenting AC review comments
+ <strong>publicly</strong>, 2 weeks <em>before</em> publication of a
+ Recommendation.</li>
<li>Errata cannot be made normative except by republishing a
Recommendation or a Revised Recommendation</li>
<li>And it is in HTML5</li>