--- a/cover.html Wed Apr 23 18:39:32 2014 +0200
+++ b/cover.html Wed Apr 30 18:54:07 2014 +0200
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@
height="48" width="72"></a>
<h1>Editor's LAST CALL DRAFT Proposed World Wide Web Consortium Process
Document</h1>
- <h2 class="notoc">23 April 2014</h2>
+ <h2 class="notoc">30 April 2014</h2>
<dl>
<dt>Latest Editor's version:</dt>
<dd> <a href="https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/tr.html">https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html</a></dd>
@@ -65,18 +65,38 @@
<p>For more information about the W3C mission and the history of W3C, please
refer to <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/">About W3C</a> [<a href="refs.html#ref-mission">PUB15</a>].</p>
<h2 class="notoc"><a name="status" id="status">Status of this Document</a></h2>
- <p>This is the 23 April 2014 Editor's draft of the W3C Process Document.
+ <p>This is the 30 April 2014 Editor's draft of the W3C Process Document.
This document has been produced following the W3C Advisory Committee "last
call" review of the proposed update to the W3C Process. It incorporates
- editorial changes to <a href="tr.html">Chapter 7</a>. A <a href="https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/">Public
- Issue Tracker</a> and <a href="https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/">detailed
- changelogs</a> are available online. Another Editor's draft is expected
- to address <a href="http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/95">Issue-95</a>,
- and the resulting document is expected to be proposed by the W3C Advisory
- Board to the Advisory Committee for formal adoption.</p>
+ editorial changes to <a href="tr.html">Chapter 7</a> and a proposed
+ resolution of <a href="http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/95">Issue-95</a>.
+ A <a href="https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/">Public Issue
+ Tracker</a> and <a href="https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/">detailed
+ changelogs</a> are available online. This document is proposed to the
+ W3C Advisory Board, for approval to propose it to the Advisory Committee
+ for formal adoption replacing the currently operative process document.</p>
+ <p>The major focus of changes has been to clarify obligations, and who is
+ obliged to meet them, in the process of developing a specification as a
+ W3C Recommendation or Note. A particular change, removing the Last Call
+ phase is intended to clarify that Working Groups are responsible for
+ ensuring that their specification is made available for review and is
+ actively reviewed at appropriate points in its development by appropriate
+ stakeholders. This is particularly intended to stop the cycling of
+ specifications between Last Call (for Patent review) and Candidate
+ Recommendation, as well as to more generally support methodologies such as
+ test-driven standardisation, without enforcing a specific methodology on
+ any group and without losing the overall benefit of W3C's requirement for
+ "horizontal" review.</p>
<p>Major changes from the currently operative 14 October 2005 Process
Document include</p>
<ul>
+ <li>The Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em> address dissenting AC
+ review comments <strong>publicly</strong>, 2 weeks <em>before</em>
+ publication of a Recommendation.</li>
+ <li>If W3C closes a Working Group, they <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
+ republish its unfinished work as Notes. </li>
+ <li>Errata <em class="rfc2119">must not</em> be made normative except by
+ revising a Recommendation</li>
<li>New requirements that Working groups <em class="rfc2119">should</em>
document known implementation and <span class="rfc2119">must</span>
document expected next steps for all publications </li>
@@ -84,8 +104,11 @@
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>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, but still ends no less than 4 weeks after publication as
+ a Proposed Recommendation. </li>
<li>Implementation requirements for passing beyond Candidate
Recommendation are not simply listed as "2 interoperable
implementations", instead a new sections gives guidance on what is
@@ -98,15 +121,6 @@
<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>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, but still ends no less than 4 weeks after publication as
- a Proposed Recommendation. </li>
- <li>The Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em> 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 revising a Recommendation</li>
</ul>
<p>The document has also been converted from XHTML 1.0 to HTML5.</p>
<ul>