--- a/cover.html Mon Jul 18 20:04:45 2016 +0200
+++ b/cover.html Tue Jul 19 10:03:05 2016 +0200
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
<body>
<div class="head"><a href="https://www.w3.org/"><img alt="W3C" src="https://www.w3.org/Icons/w3c_home" height="48" width="72"></a>
<h1>W3C Editor's Draft Process Document</h1>
- <h2 class="notoc">10 July 2016 Editor's Draft</h2>
+ <h2 class="notoc">18 July 2016 Editor's Draft</h2>
<dl>
<dt>Latest Editor's version:</dt>
<dd> <a href="https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html">https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html</a></dd>
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@
<a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/">most recent operative Process Document</a> announced to the Membership.</p>
<p>This document is developed by the Advisory Board's Process Task Force (which anyone may join) working within the
- <a href="https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/">Revising W3C Process Community Group</a>. This is the 10 July 2016
+ <a href="https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/">Revising W3C Process Community Group</a>. This is the 18 July 2016
Editor's draft for the proposed next version of the W3C Process Document. This document is based on the 1 September 2015
Process.</p>
@@ -71,6 +71,10 @@
AC review on whether to adopt this as the new operative Process document.
Further revision to the Process is expected as needed.</p>
+ <p>This draft makes editorial changes to clarify the status of an Obsolete Recommendation with respect to the Patent Policy
+ and clarify the requirements when a charter continues work on a document that has previously had an Exclusion Opportunity
+ according to the Patent Policy.</p>
+
<p>A <a href="#changes">change history</a> nased on the 1 September 2015 Process Document is part of this draft.</p>
<p>Comment is invited on the draft. Please send comments to
@@ -405,7 +409,7 @@
<li>On the Team, as <a href="#fellows">W3C Fellows</a>.</li>
</ul>
- <p>In the Member is itself a consortium, user society, or otherwise has members or sponsors, as described in paragraph 5g of
+ <p>If the Member is itself a consortium, user society, or otherwise has members or sponsors, as described in paragraph 5g of
the <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Agreement/Member-Agreement">Membership Agreement</a>), the rights and privileges
of W3C Membership granted by W3C Process extend to the the organization's paid staff and Advisory Committee.</p>
@@ -1191,7 +1195,7 @@
<p>The Director's Call for Review of a substantively modified charter <em class="rfc2119">must</em> highlight
important changes (e.g., regarding deliverables or resource allocation) and include rationale for the changes.</p>
- <p>Transition Requests to First Public Working Draft or Candidate Recommendation will not normally be approved while a
+ <p>Transition Requests to First Public Working Draft or <a href="#last-call">Candidate Recommendation</a> will not normally be approved while a
Working Group's charter is undergoing, or awaiting a Director's Decision on, an Advisory Committee Review, until the
Director issues a Call for Participation for the Working Group.</p>
@@ -1202,8 +1206,8 @@
review comments before the Director issues a Call for Participation. </p>
<p>If a charter includes deliverables that continue work on documents for which a Reference Draft or
- Candidate Recommendation have previously been published (i.e there has been an
- Exclusion Opportunity per <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-Exclusion@@">section 4.1</a> of the
+ <a href="#last-call">Candidate Recommendation</a> have previously been published (i.e there has been an
+ Exclusion Opportunity per <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-exclusion-with">section 4.1</a> of the
<a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C Patent Policy</a> [<a href="#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>]),
the Director <em class="rfc2119">must not</em> issue a call for participation less
than 60 days after the beginning of the Advisory Committee Review of the charter.</p>
@@ -1272,7 +1276,7 @@
<p>For every Recommendation Track deliverable that continues work on a Working Draft (WD) published under any other Charter
(including a predecessor group of the same name), for which an Exclusion Opportunity per
- <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-Exclusion@@">section 4.1</a> of the
+ <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-exclusion-with">section 4.1</a> of the
<a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C Patent Policy</a> [<a href="#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>]
has occurred, the description of that deliverable in the proposed charter of the adopting Working Group
<em class="rfc2119">must</em> provide the following information:</p>
@@ -1280,19 +1284,19 @@
<ul>
<li>The title, stable URL, and publication date of the Working Draft which will serve as the basis for work on the
deliverable</li>
- <li>The title, stable URL, and publication date of the most recent Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation which
- triggered an Exclusion Opportunity per the Patent Process</li>
+ <li>The title, stable URL, and publication date of the most recent Reference Draft or
+ <a href="#last-call">Candidate Recommendation</a> which triggered an Exclusion Opportunity per the Patent Process</li>
<li>The stable URL of the Working Group charter under which the most recent Working Draft which triggered an Exclusion Opportunity was published.</li>
</ul>
<p>The <dfn>Reference Draft</dfn> is the latest Working Draft published within 90 days of the
<a href="">First Public Working Draft</a>, and is the draft against which exclusions are be made, as per
- <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-Exclusion@@">section 4.1</a> of the
+ <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-exclusion-with">section 4.1</a> of the
<a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C Patent Policy</a> [<a href="#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>].</p>
- <p>The adopted Working Draft and the most recent Reference Draft or <href="@@">Candidate Recommendation</a>
+ <p>The adopted Working Draft and the most recent Reference Draft or <a href="#last-call">Candidate Recommendation</a>
<em class="rfc2119">must</em> each be adopted in their entirety and without any modification. The proposed charter
- <em class="rfc2119">must</em> state that the most recent Reference Draft or <href="@@">Candidate Recommendation</a>
+ <em class="rfc2119">must</em> state that the most recent Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation
is the Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation, respectively, of the specification in the Working Group.</p>
<p>The Director <em class="rfc2119">must not</em> issue a call for participation less than 60 days after the beginning of
@@ -1348,7 +1352,7 @@
<p>This chapter describes the formal requirements for publishing and maintaining a W3C Recommendation or Note.</p>
<p>Typically a series of Working Drafts are published, each of which refines a document under development to complete the scope of
work envisioned by a Working Group's charter. For a technical specification, once review suggests the Working Group has met their
- requirements satisfactorily for a new standard, there is a Candidate Recommendation phase. This allows the entire W3C membership to
+ requirements satisfactorily for a new standard, there is a <a href="#last-call">Candidate Recommendation</a> phase. This allows the entire W3C membership to
provide feedback on whether the specification is appropriate as a W3C Recommendation, while the Working Group formally collects
implementation experience to demonstrate that the specification works in practice. The next phase is a Proposed Recommendation, to
finalize the review of W3C Members. If the Director determines that W3C member review supports a specification becoming a standard,
@@ -1514,7 +1518,7 @@
approval is normally fairly automatic. For later stages, especially transition to Candidate or Proposed Recommendation,
there is usually a formal review meeting to ensure the requirements have been met before Director's approval is given.</p>
- <p>Transition Requests to First Public Working Draft or Candidate Recommendation will not normally be approved while a
+ <p>Transition Requests to First Public Working Draft or <a href="#last-call">Candidate Recommendation</a> will not normally be approved while a
Working Group's charter is undergoing or awaiting a Director's Decision on an Advisory Committee Review.</p>
<h4 id="doc-reviews">6.2.3 Reviews and Review Responsibilities</h4>
@@ -1538,7 +1542,7 @@
<p>For example, inviting review of new or significantly revised sections published in Working Drafts, and tracking those comments and
the Working Group's responses, is generally a good practice which would often be considered positive evidence of wide review.
Working Groups <em class="rfc2119">should</em> announce to other W3C Working Groups as well as the general public, especially those
- affected by this specification, a proposal to enter Candidate Recommendation (for example in approximately four weeks). By contrast
+ affected by this specification, a proposal to enter <a href="#last-call">Candidate Recommendation</a> (for example in approximately four weeks). By contrast
a generic statement in a document requesting review at any time is likely not to be considered as sufficient evidence that the group
has solicited wide review. </p>
<p>A Working Group could present evidence that wide review has been received, irrespective of solicitation. But it is important to
@@ -1718,7 +1722,7 @@
</ul>
<p>Since a W3C Recommendation <em class="rfc2119">must not</em> include any substantive changes from the Proposed Recommendation it
is based on, to make any substantive change to a Proposed Recommendation the Working Group <em class="rfc2119">must</em> return the
- specification to Candidate Recommendation or Working Draft.</p>
+ specification to <a href="#last-call">Candidate Recommendation</a> or Working Draft.</p>
<p>Possible Next Steps:</p>
<ul>
<li>Return to <a href="#revised-wd">Working Draft</a></li>
@@ -2420,7 +2424,7 @@
Tantek Çelik (Mozilla), Michael Champion (W3C), Maria Courtemanche (IBM), Donald Deutsch (Oracle),
Geoffrey Creighton (Microsoft),
Kevin Fleming (Bloomberg), Virginia Fournier (Apple), Virginie Galindo (Gemalto),
- Daniel Glazman (Disruptive Innovations), Michael Geldblum (), Jeff Jaffe (W3C), Jay Junichi Kishigami (NTT),
+ Daniel Glazman (Disruptive Innovations), Michael Geldblum (Oracle), Jeff Jaffe (W3C), Jay Junichi Kishigami (NTT),
Mark Nottingham, Peter Patel-Schneider, Scott Peterson (Google), Delfí Ramírez, Florian Rivoal, Wendy Seltzer (W3C),
David Singer (Apple), Geoffrey Snedden, Josh Soref,
Léonie Watson (The Paciello Group), Ben Wilson, Chris Wilson (Google), Rigo Wenning (W3C), Helene Workman (Apple),
@@ -2447,15 +2451,25 @@
<h2 id="changes">14 Changes</h2>
- <p>This document is based on the <a href="https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/">1 September 2015 Process. <a href="https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/">Detailed change logs</a> are available.</p>
+ <p>This document is based on the <a href="https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/">1 September 2015 Process</a>. <a href="https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/">Detailed change logs</a> are available.</p>
<p>The notable changes include:</p>
<h3>Current draft</h3>
<ul>
- <li>Added a process to make a Recommendation Obsolete - 6.9</a></li>
- <li>Clarified the process to rescind a Recommendation, aligning with with obsoleting a Recommendation - 6.9</a></li>
+ <li>Editorial clarification of the status of an Obsolete Recommendation - section <a href="#rec-rescind">6.9</a></li>
+ <li>Editorial clarification for charters which continue work that has already had an Exclusion Opportunity
+ - <a href="#CharterReview">5.2.3</a>, <a href="#cfp">5.2.4</a>, and <a href="#WGCharter">5.2.6</a>.</li>
+ </ul>
+
+ <h3>Between the <a href="https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/f070f753bcea/cover.html">10 July 2016 draft</a> and the
+ <a href="https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/">1 September 2015 Process</a></h3>
+
+ <ul>
+ <li>Added a process to make a Recommendation Obsolete - <a href="#rec-rescind">6.9</a></li>
+ <li>Clarified the process to rescind a Recommendation, aligning with with obsoleting a Recommendation -
+ <a href="#rec-rescind">6.9</a></li>
<li>Clarified the process for continuing work on a specification initially developed under another charter -
<a href="#CharterReview">5.2.3</a>, <a href="#cfp">5.2.4</a>, <a href="#WGCharter">5.2.6</a>,
<a href="#transition-reqs">6.2.2</a>.</li>