--- a/tr.html Fri Feb 14 22:13:54 2014 +0100
+++ b/tr.html Fri Feb 14 22:54:55 2014 +0100
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
height="48" width="72"></a> </p>
<h1 class="title" id="title">Recommendation Track Process draft proposal</h1>
<h2 id="draft-shorthand-status"><abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium"></abbr>Editors'
- Draft 5 February 2014</h2>
+ Draft 14 February 2014</h2>
<dl>
<dt>Current active version:</dt>
<dd><a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html">http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html</a></dd>
@@ -52,15 +52,10 @@
<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. </p>
- <p>This draft incorporates changes 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>Because these are significant changes from recent drafts, careful
- review is requested. It is quite possible that the changes introduced
- in the new section 7.6 and in sections 7.5 and 7.7 include some
- mistakes or new problems that need to be addressed.</p>
+ <p>This draft incorporates outstanding review comments following the
+ meeting of the W3C Advisory Board's Chapter 7 Task Force on 3 February
+ 2014. In particular it fixes some errors introduced with the
+ reintroduction of Proposed Recommendation in the last draft.</p>
<p>This introductory section (before the chapter title below) will be
removed when this chapter is re-incorporated into the full process
document.</p>
@@ -77,14 +72,13 @@
process will follow the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/processdoc.html#GAProcess">existing
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, 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>
+ Group, Art Barstow, Robin Berjon, Wayne Carr, Marcos Cáceres,
+ 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
@@ -232,10 +226,10 @@
become a standard.</li>
</ol>
<p>Some W3C Notes are developed through successive Working Drafts, with an
- expectation that they will become Notes, while others are simply
- Published. There are few formal requirements to publish a document as a
- W3C Note, and they have no standing as a recommendation of W3C but are
- simply documents preserved for historical reference.</p>
+ expectation that they will become Notes, while others are simply published.
+ There are few formal requirements to publish a document as a W3C Note, and
+ they have no standing as a recommendation of W3C but are simply documents
+ preserved for historical reference.</p>
<p>Individual Working Groups and Interest Groups may adopt additional
processes for developing publications, so long as they do not conflict
with the requirements in this chapter.</p>
@@ -357,14 +351,9 @@
<dt id="WGNote">Working Group Note, Interest Group Note (NOTE) </dt>
<dd>A Working Group Note or Interest Group Note is published by a
chartered Working Group or Interest Group to provide a stable reference
- for a document that is not intended to be a specification requiring
- conformance, but is nevertheless useful. Examples include supporting
- documents such as Use case and Requirements documents, Design Principles
- that explain what the Working Group was trying to achieve with a
- specification, or 'Good Practices" documents. A Working Group <em class="rfc2119">may</em>
- also publish a specification as a Note if they stop work without
- producing a Recommendation. A Working Group or Interest Group <em class="rfc2119">may</em>
- publish a Note with or without its prior publication as a Working Draft.</dd>
+ for a useful document that is not intended to be a standard with
+ conformance requirements, or to document work that was abandoned without
+ producing a Recommendation.</dd>
<dt id="RescindedRec">Rescinded Recommendation</dt>
<dd>A Rescinded Recommendation is an entire Recommendation that W3C no
longer endorses. See also clause 10 of the licensing requirements for
@@ -631,7 +620,7 @@
</ul>
<p>The Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the publication of a
Candidate Recommendation to other W3C groups and to the public, and <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
- begin an Advisory Committee Review of the specification on publication.</p>
+ begin an Advisory Committee Review of the specification.</p>
<p> A Candidate Recommendation corresponds to a "Last Call Working Draft" as
used in the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C
Patent Policy</a> [<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/refs.html#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>].
@@ -653,8 +642,8 @@
<h4 id="revised-cr">7.4.1 Revised Candidate Recommendation</h4>
<p>If there are any <a href="#substantive-change">substantive changes</a>
made to a Candidate Recommendation other than to remove features
- explicitly identified as "at risk", the Director <em class="rfc2119">must
- not</em> approve the publication of a revised Candidate
+ explicitly identified as "at risk", the Working Group <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
+ obtain the Director's approval to publish a revised Candidate
Recommendation. This is because substantive changes will generally require
a new Exclusion Opportunity per <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-Exclusion">section
4</a> of the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C
@@ -808,12 +797,15 @@
report to Recommendation</a>.</p>
<h3 id="Note">7.8 Publishing a Working Group or Interest Group Note</h3>
<p>Working Groups and Interest Groups publish material that is not a formal
- specification as Notes. This may include supporting documentation for a
- specification, such as requirements, use cases, good practices and the
- like, as well as specifications where work has been stopped and there is
- no longer interest in making them a new standard.</p>
+ specification as Notes. This includes supporting documentation for a
+ specification such as explanations of design principles or use cases and
+ requirements, non-normative guides to good practices, as well as
+ specifications where work has been stopped and there is no longer interest
+ in making them a new standard.</p>
<p>In order to publish a Note a Working Group or Interest Group: </p>
<ul>
+ <li> <em class="rfc2119">may</em> publish a Note with or without its
+ prior publication as a Working Draft.</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> record the group's decision to request
publication as a Note, and</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> publish documentation of significant
@@ -823,9 +815,9 @@
<ul>
<li>End state: A technical report <em class="rfc2119">may</em> remain a
Working Group Note indefinitely</li>
- <li>A Working Group <em class="rfc2119">may</em> resume work on the
- technical report at any time, at the maturity level the specification
- had before publication as a Note</li>
+ <li>A Working Group <em class="rfc2119">may</em> resume work on technical
+ report within the scope of its charter at any time, at the maturity
+ level the specification had before publication as a Note</li>
</ul>
<p>The <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C Patent
Policy</a> [<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/refs.html#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>]