Editorial tweaks to "wide review", bigger changes to "errata maangement", per changes section. Updated for publishing so W3M can review.
authorcharles
Wed, 21 Jan 2015 01:38:29 +0100
changeset 135 2595a57b2d52
parent 134 d36958ef9d49
child 136 d8fdfbc0ee40
Editorial tweaks to "wide review", bigger changes to "errata maangement", per changes section. Updated for publishing so W3M can review.
cover.html
--- a/cover.html	Sun Jan 11 18:50:43 2015 +0100
+++ b/cover.html	Wed Jan 21 01:38:29 2015 +0100
@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
-<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type">
    <meta name="keywords" content="W3C, World Wide Web, Web, WWW, Consortium, process, Team, Recommendation, Advisory Committee, Advisory Board, Working Group, Coordination Group, Interest Group, W3C Activity, Workshop, Symposium, charter, Activity Proposal, Working Draft, Process Document, Candidate Recommendation, Director, Proposed Recommendation, Last Call, Submission request">
    <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/base.css">
    <title>World Wide Web Consortium Process Document</title>
    <style type="text/css">
     .about { margin-left: 3em; margin-right: 3em; font-size: .83em}
     table { margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto }
     .diagram { text-align: center; margin: 2.5em 0 }
      .issue:before {content: "Issue: "}
      .issue {border: 2px dashed red; background-color: #ffa;}
      .issue .issue {background-color: #fcc;}
      .rfc2119 {font-variant:small-caps}
</style> <!--[if lt IE 9]><script src='undefined://www.w3.org/2008/site/js/html5shiv.js'></script><![endif]-->
  </head>
  <body>
    <div class="head"><a href="http://www.w3.org/"><img alt="W3C" src="https://www.w3.org/Icons/w3c_home"
          height="48"
          width="72"></a>
      <h1>W3C Draft Process Document</h1>
      <h2 class="notoc">11 January 2015 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>
        <dt>Latest operative version:</dt>
        <dd><a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/">http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/</a></dd>
        <dt>Editor:</dt>
        <dd>Charles McCathie Nevile, <a style="color:black" href="http://yandex.com"><span
              style="color: red;">Y</span>andex</a>—<a
            style="color:black"
            href="http://yandex.ru"><span
              style="color: red;">Я</span>ндекс</a></dd>
        <dt>Previous editor:</dt>
        <dd>Ian Jacobs, <a href="http://www.w3.org/">W3C</a></dd>
      </dl>
      <p class="copyright"><a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#Copyright">Copyright</a>
        © 1996-2014 <a href="/"><abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</abbr></a><sup>®</sup>
        (<a href="http://www.csail.mit.edu/"><abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr></a>,
        <a href="http://www.ercim.eu/"><abbr title="European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics">ERCIM</abbr></a>,
        <a href="http://www.keio.ac.jp/">Keio</a>, <a href="http://ev.buaa.edu.cn/">Beihang</a>),
+<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type">
    <meta name="keywords" content="W3C, World Wide Web, Web, WWW, Consortium, process, Team, Recommendation, Advisory Committee, Advisory Board, Working Group, Coordination Group, Interest Group, W3C Activity, Workshop, Symposium, charter, Activity Proposal, Working Draft, Process Document, Candidate Recommendation, Director, Proposed Recommendation, Last Call, Submission request">
    <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/base.css">
    <title>World Wide Web Consortium Process Document</title>
    <style type="text/css">
     .about { margin-left: 3em; margin-right: 3em; font-size: .83em}
     table { margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto }
     .diagram { text-align: center; margin: 2.5em 0 }
      .issue:before {content: "Issue: "}
      .issue {border: 2px dashed red; background-color: #ffa;}
      .issue .issue {background-color: #fcc;}
      .rfc2119 {font-variant:small-caps}
</style> <!--[if lt IE 9]><script src='undefined://www.w3.org/2008/site/js/html5shiv.js'></script><![endif]-->
  </head>
  <body>
    <div class="head"><a href="http://www.w3.org/"><img alt="W3C" src="https://www.w3.org/Icons/w3c_home"
          height="48"
          width="72"></a>
      <h1>W3C Draft Process Document</h1>
      <h2 class="notoc">21 January 2015 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>
        <dt>Latest operative version:</dt>
        <dd><a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/">http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/</a></dd>
        <dt>Editor:</dt>
        <dd>Charles McCathie Nevile, <a style="color:black" href="http://yandex.com"><span
              style="color: red;">Y</span>andex</a>—<a
            style="color:black"
            href="http://yandex.ru"><span
              style="color: red;">Я</span>ндекс</a></dd>
        <dt>Previous editor:</dt>
        <dd>Ian Jacobs, <a href="http://www.w3.org/">W3C</a></dd>
      </dl>
      <p class="copyright"><a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#Copyright">Copyright</a>
        © 1996-2015 <a href="/"><abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</abbr></a><sup>®</sup>
        (<a href="http://www.csail.mit.edu/"><abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr></a>,
        <a href="http://www.ercim.eu/"><abbr title="European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics">ERCIM</abbr></a>,
        <a href="http://www.keio.ac.jp/">Keio</a>, <a href="http://ev.buaa.edu.cn/">Beihang</a>),
         All Rights Reserved. W3C <a href="/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#Legal_Disclaimer">liability</a>,
        <a href="/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#W3C_Trademarks">trademark</a>, <a
          rel="Copyright"
          href="/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents">document
           use</a> and <a rel="Copyright" href="/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software">software
           licensing</a> rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in
        accordance with our <a href="/Consortium/Legal/privacy-statement#Public">public</a>
        and <a href="/Consortium/Legal/privacy-statement#Members">Member</a>
        privacy statements.</p>
      <hr></div>
    <h2 class="notoc"><a id="abstract">Abstract</a></h2>
    <p>The mission of the World Wide Web Consortium (<abbr>W3C</abbr>) is to
      lead the World Wide Web to its full potential by developing common
      protocols that promote its evolution and ensure its interoperability. The
      W3C Process Document describes the organizational structure of the W3C and
      the processes related to the responsibilities and functions they exercise
      to enable W3C to accomplish its mission. This document does not describe
      the internal workings of the Team or W3C's public communication
      mechanisms.</p>
    <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="#ref-mission">PUB15</a>].</p>
    <h2 class="notoc" id="status">Status of this Document</h2>
    <p>W3C, including all existing chartered groups, follows the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/">most
-        recent operative Process Document</a> announced to the Membership.</p>
    <p>This is the 11 January 2015 Editor's draft for the proposed next version
      of the W3C Process Document. This document is based on the 30 September
      review draft, itself based on the 1 August 2014 Process, developed between
      the <a href="/2002/ab/">W3C Advisory Board</a> and the <a href="http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/">Revising
-        W3C Process Community Group</a> and adopted as the currently operative
      Process. </p>
    <p>In <em>this draft</em> various small editorial cleanups have been made.
      A <a href="#changes">change history</a> (compared to the 2014 Process
      Document) forms part of the draft.</p>
    <p>During the rest of 2014 the document will be developed in preparation for
      adopting a revised process in 2015.</p>
    <p>Public comment is invited on the draft. Please send comments about this
      document to the <a href="http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/">Revising
        W3C Process Community Group</a> (<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/">Mailing
+        recent operative Process Document</a> announced to the Membership.</p>
    <p>This is the 21 January 2015 Editor's draft for the proposed next version
      of the W3C Process Document. This document is based on the 30 September
      review draft, itself based on the 1 August 2014 Process, developed between
      the <a href="/2002/ab/">W3C Advisory Board</a> and the <a href="http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/">Revising
+        W3C Process Community Group</a> and adopted as the currently operative
      Process. </p>
    <p>In <em>this draft</em> changes have been made to sections <a href="#wide-review">7.2.3.1
        Wide Review</a> and <a href="#errata">7.7.1 Errata Management</a>. A <a
        href="#changes">change
        history</a> (compared to the 2014 Process Document) forms part of the
      draft.</p>
    <p>The document will continue to be developed in preparation for adopting a
      revised process in 2015. A further revision is anticipated, to be adopted
      in 2016.</p>
    <p>Comment is invited on the draft. Please send comments about this document
      to the <a href="http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/">Revising W3C
        Process Community Group</a> (<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/">Mailing
         list archive</a>, publicly available) or to [email protected] (<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/process-issues">Member-only
         archive</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. </p>
    <h2 class="notoc" id="pp">Relation of Process Document to Patent Policy</h2>
    <p>W3C Members' attention is called to the fact that provisions of the
      Process Document are binding on Members per the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Agreement/Member-Agreement">Membership
@@ -37,8 +37,8 @@
 Committee
           meetings</a> [<a href="#ref-ac-meetings">MEM5</a>] is available at the
        Member Web site.</p>
      <h3 id="Team">2.2 The W3C Team</h3>
      <p>The Team consists of the Director, CEO, W3C paid staff, unpaid interns,
        and W3C Fellows. <dfn id="fellows">W3C Fellows</dfn> are Member
        employees working as part of the Team; see the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Recruitment/Fellows">W3C
           Fellows Program</a> [<a href="#ref-fellows">PUB32</a>]. The Team
        provides technical leadership about Web technologies, organizes and
        manages W3C activities to reach goals within practical constraints (such
        as resources available), and communicates with the Members and the
        public about the Web and W3C technologies.</p>
      <p>The Director and CEO <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> delegate
        responsibility (generally to other individuals in the Team) for any of
        their roles described in this document.</p>
      <p>The <dfn id="def-Director">Director</dfn> is the lead technical
        architect at W3C. His responsibilities are identified throughout this
        document in relevant places Some key ones include: assessing <a href="#def-Consensus"
          id="DirectorDecision">consensus</a>
        within W3C for architectural choices, publication of <a href="#Reports">technical
-          reports</a>, and new activities; appointing group <a href="#GeneralChairs">Chairs</a>;
        "tie-breaker" for <a href="#WGAppeals">appeal of a Working Group
          decision</a>; the Director is generally Chair of the <a href="#TAG">TAG</a>.</p>
      <p>Team administrative information such as Team salaries, detailed
        budgeting, and other business decisions are <a href="#Team-only">Team-only</a>,
        subject to oversight by the Host institutions.</p>
      <p><strong>Note:</strong> W3C is not currently incorporated. For legal
        contracts, W3C is represented by four <dfn id="hosts">"Host"
          institutions</dfn>: Beihang University, the European Research
        Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics (<abbr>ERCIM</abbr>), Keio
        University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (<abbr>MIT</abbr>).
-        Within W3C, the Host institutions are governed by joint sponsorship
        contracts; the Hosts themselves are not W3C Members.</p>
      <h4 id="TeamSubmission">2.2.1 Team Submissions</h4>
      <p>Team members <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> request that the
        Director publish information at the W3C Web site. At the Director's
        discretion, these documents are published as "Team Submissions". These
        documents are analogous to <a href="#Submission">Member Submissions</a>
        (e.g., in <a href="#SubmissionScope">expected scope</a>). However,
        there is no additional Team comment. The <a href="#DocumentStatus">document
+          reports</a>, and new activities; appointing group <a href="#GeneralChairs">Chairs</a>;
        "tie-breaker" for <a href="#WGAppeals">appeal of a Working Group
          decision</a> and deciding on the outcome of formal objections; the
        Director is generally Chair of the <a href="#TAG">TAG</a>.</p>
      <p>Team administrative information such as Team salaries, detailed
        budgeting, and other business decisions are <a href="#Team-only">Team-only</a>,
        subject to oversight by the Host institutions.</p>
      <p><strong>Note:</strong> W3C is not currently incorporated. For legal
        contracts, W3C is represented by four <dfn id="hosts">"Host"
          institutions</dfn>: Beihang University, the European Research
        Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics (<abbr>ERCIM</abbr>), Keio
        University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (<abbr>MIT</abbr>).
+        Within W3C, the Host institutions are governed by hosting agreements;
        the Hosts themselves are not W3C Members.</p>
      <h4 id="TeamSubmission">2.2.1 Team Submissions</h4>
      <p>Team members <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> request that the
        Director publish information at the W3C Web site. At the Director's
        discretion, these documents are published as "Team Submissions". These
        documents are analogous to <a href="#Submission">Member Submissions</a>
        (e.g., in <a href="#SubmissionScope">expected scope</a>). However,
        there is no additional Team comment. The <a href="#DocumentStatus">document
           status section</a> of a Team Submission indicates the level of Team
        consensus about the published material.</p>
      <p>Team Submissions are <strong>not</strong> part of the <a href="#Reports">technical
           report development process</a>.</p>
      <p>The list of <a href="http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/">published Team
          Submissions</a> [<a href="#ref-team-submission-list">PUB16</a>] is
        available at the W3C Web site.</p>
      <h3 id="AB">2.3 Advisory Board (AB)</h3>
      <p>Created in March 1998, the Advisory Board provides ongoing guidance to
        the Team on issues of strategy, management, legal matters, process, and
        conflict resolution. The Advisory Board also serves the Members by
        tracking issues raised between Advisory Committee meetings, soliciting
        Member comments on such issues, and proposing actions to resolve these
        issues. The Advisory Board manages the <a href="#GAProcess">evolution
          of the Process Document</a>. The Advisory Board hears appeals of <a href="#SubmissionNo">Member
           Submission requests</a> that are rejected for reasons unrelated to Web
        architecture; see also the <a href="#TAG">TAG</a>.</p>
      <p>The Advisory Board is <strong>not</strong> a board of directors and
        has no decision-making authority within W3C; its role is strictly
        advisory.</p>
      <p>The Team <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> make available a mailing
        list for the Advisory Board to use for its communication, confidential
        to the Advisory Board and Team.</p>
      <p>The Advisory Board <span class="rfc2119">SHOULD</span> send a summary
        of each of its meetings to the Advisory Committee and other group
        Chairs. The Advisory Board <span class="rfc2119">SHOULD</span> also
        report on its activities at each <a href="#ACMeetings">Advisory
          Committee meeting</a>.</p>
      <p>Details about the Advisory Board (e.g., the list of Advisory Board
        participants, mailing list information, and summaries of Advisory Board
        meetings) are available at the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/ab/">Advisory
@@ -132,7 +132,7 @@
             changes</a> to the technical report since the previous publication.</li>
        <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> <a href="#formal-address">formally
            address</a> all issues raised about the document since the previous
          maturity level.</li>
        <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> provide public documentation of any <a
            href="#FormalObjection">Formal
             Objections</a>.</li>
        <li><span class="rfc2119">should</span> provide public documentation of
          changes that are not substantive.</li>
        <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> report which, if any, of the Working
          Group's requirements for this document have changed since the previous
          step.</li>
        <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> report any changes in dependencies
          with other groups.</li>
        <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> provide information about
          implementations known to the Working Group.</li>
      </ul>
      <p>For a First Public Working Draft there is no "previous maturity level",
        so many requirements do not apply, and approval is normally fairly
        automatic. For later stages, especially transition to Candidate or
        Proposed Recommendation, there is generally a formal review meeting to
        ensure the requirements have been met before Director's approval is
        given.</p>
      <h4 id="doc-reviews">7.2.3 Reviews and Review Responsibilities</h4>
      <p>A document is available for review from the moment it is first
        published. Working Groups <em class="rfc2119">should</em> <a href="#formal-address">formally
           address</a> <em>any</em> substantive review comment about a technical
        report in a timely manner. </p>
      Reviewers <em class="rfc2119">should</em> send substantive technical
      reviews as early as possible. Working Groups are often reluctant to make <a
        href="#substantive-change">substantive
-        changes</a> to a mature document, particularly if this would cause
      significant compatibility problems due to existing implementation. Working
      Groups <em class="rfc2119">should</em> record substantive or interesting
      proposals raised by reviews but not incorporated into a current
      specification.
      <h5 id="wide-review">7.2.3.1 Wide Review</h5>
      <p>The requirements for wide review are not precisely defined by the W3C
        Process. The objective is to ensure that the entire set of stakeholders
        of the Web community, including the general public, have had adequate
        notice of the progress of the Working Group (for example through notices
        posted to <a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>)
        and thereby an opportunity to comment on the specification. Before
        approving transitions, the Director will consider who has been
        explicitly offered a reasonable opportunity to review the document, who
        has provided comments, the record of requests to and responses from
        reviewers, especially groups identified as dependencies in the charter,
        and seek evidence of clear communication to the general public about
        appropriate times and which content to review. </p>
      <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 <span class="rfc2119">should</span>
        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 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 note that
        receiving many detailed reviews is not necessarily the same as wide
        review, since they may only represent comment from a small segment of
        the relevant stakeholder community.</p>
      <h4 id="implementation-experience">7.2.4 Implementation Experience</h4>
      <p>Implementation experience is required to show that a specification is
        sufficiently clear, complete, and relevant to market needs, to ensure
        that independent interoperable implementations of each feature of the
        specification will be realized. While no exhaustive list of requirements
        is provided here, when assessing that there is <dfn>adequate
          implementation experience</dfn> the Director will consider (though not
        be limited to):</p>
      <ul>
        <li>is each feature of the current specification implemented, and how is
          this demonstrated?</li>
        <li>are there independent interoperable implementations of the current
          specification?</li>
        <li>are there implementations created by people other than the authors
          of the specification?</li>
        <li>are implementations publicly deployed?</li>
        <li>is there implementation experience at all levels of the
          specification's ecosystem (authoring, consuming, publishing…)?</li>
        <li>are there reports of difficulties or problems with implementation?</li>
      </ul>
      <p>Planning and accomplishing a demonstration of (interoperable)
        implementations can be very time consuming. Groups are often able to
        work more effectively if they plan how they will demonstrate
        interoperable implementations early in the development process; for
        example, they may wish to develop tests in concert with implementation
        efforts.</p>
      <h4 id="correction-classes">7.2.5 Classes of Changes</h4>
      <p>This document distinguishes the following 4 classes of changes to a
        specification. The first two classes of change are considered <dfn id="editorial-change">editorial
+        changes</a> to a mature document, particularly if this would cause
      significant compatibility problems due to existing implementation. Working
      Groups <em class="rfc2119">should</em> record substantive or interesting
      proposals raised by reviews but not incorporated into a current
      specification.
      <h5 id="wide-review">7.2.3.1 Wide Review</h5>
      <p>The requirements for wide review are not precisely defined by the W3C
        Process. The objective is to ensure that the entire set of stakeholders
        of the Web community, including the general public, have had adequate
        notice of the progress of the Working Group (for example through notices
        posted to <a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>)
        and thereby an opportunity to comment on the specification.
        <meta charset="utf-8">
        <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21.503999710083px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; display: inline !important; float: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">A
          second objective is to encourage groups to request reviews early
          enough that comments and suggested changes may still be reasonably
          incorporated in response to the review. </span>Before approving
        transitions, the Director will consider who has been explicitly offered
        a reasonable opportunity to review the document, who has provided
        comments, the record of requests to and responses from reviewers,
        especially groups identified as dependencies in the charter or
        identified as <a href="http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison.html">liaisons</a>,
        and seek evidence of clear communication to the general public about
        appropriate times and which content to review and whether such reviews
        actually occurred. </p>
      <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 <span class="rfc2119">should</span>
        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 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 note that
        receiving many detailed reviews is not necessarily the same as wide
        review, since they may only represent comment from a small segment of
        the relevant stakeholder community.</p>
      <h4 id="implementation-experience">7.2.4 Implementation Experience</h4>
      <p>Implementation experience is required to show that a specification is
        sufficiently clear, complete, and relevant to market needs, to ensure
        that independent interoperable implementations of each feature of the
        specification will be realized. While no exhaustive list of requirements
        is provided here, when assessing that there is <dfn>adequate
          implementation experience</dfn> the Director will consider (though not
        be limited to):</p>
      <ul>
        <li>is each feature of the current specification implemented, and how is
          this demonstrated?</li>
        <li>are there independent interoperable implementations of the current
          specification?</li>
        <li>are there implementations created by people other than the authors
          of the specification?</li>
        <li>are implementations publicly deployed?</li>
        <li>is there implementation experience at all levels of the
          specification's ecosystem (authoring, consuming, publishing…)?</li>
        <li>are there reports of difficulties or problems with implementation?</li>
      </ul>
      <p>Planning and accomplishing a demonstration of (interoperable)
        implementations can be very time consuming. Groups are often able to
        work more effectively if they plan how they will demonstrate
        interoperable implementations early in the development process; for
        example, they may wish to develop tests in concert with implementation
        efforts.</p>
      <h4 id="correction-classes">7.2.5 Classes of Changes</h4>
      <p>This document distinguishes the following 4 classes of changes to a
        specification. The first two classes of change are considered <dfn id="editorial-change">editorial
           changes</dfn>, the latter two <dfn id="substantive-change">substantive
           changes</dfn>.</p>
      <dl>
        <dt>1. No changes to text content</dt>
        <dd>These changes include fixing broken links, style sheets or invalid
          markup.</dd>
        <dt>2. Corrections that do not affect conformance</dt>
        <dd>Editorial changes or clarifications that do not change the technical
          content of the specification.</dd>
        <dt>3. Corrections that do not add new features</dt>
        <dd>These changes <span class="rfc2119">may</span> affect conformance
          to the specification. A change that affects conformance is one that:
          <ul>
            <li>makes conforming data, processors, or other conforming agents
              become non-conforming according to the new version, or</li>
            <li>makes non-conforming data, processors, or other agents become
              conforming, or</li>
            <li>clears up an ambiguity or under-specified part of the
              specification in such a way that data, a processor, or an agent
              whose conformance was once unclear becomes clearly either
              conforming or non-conforming.</li>
          </ul>
        </dd>
        <dt>4. New features</dt>
        <dd>Changes that add a new functionality, element, etc.</dd>
      </dl>
      <h3 id="working-draft">7.3 Working Draft</h3>
      <p>A Public Working Draft is published on the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/">W3C's
           Technical Reports page</a> [TR] for review, and for simple historical
        reference. For all Public Working Drafts a Working Group</p>
      <ul>
        <li> <em class="rfc2119">should</em> document outstanding issues, and
          parts of the document on which the Working Group does not have
          consensus, and</li>
        <li> <em class="rfc2119">may</em> request publication of a Working
          Draft even if its content is considered unstable and does not meet all
          Working Group requirements.</li>
      </ul>
      <h4 id="first-wd">7.3.1 First Public Working Draft</h4>
      <p>To publish the First Public Working Draft of a document, a Working
        Group must meet the applicable <a href="#transition-reqs">general
          requirements for advancement</a>.</p>
      <p>The Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the publication of
        a First Public Working Draft publication to other W3C groups and to the
        public. </p>
      <p>Publishing the First Public Working Draft triggers a Call for
        Exclusions, per <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-Exclusion">section
@@ -152,7 +152,7 @@
 
             Recommendation</a>, or</li>
        <li><em class="rfc2119">may</em> be <a href="#rec-rescind">rescinded</a>.</li>
      </ul>
      <h3 id="rec-modify">7.7 Modifying a W3C Recommendation</h3>
      <p>This section details the management of errors in, and the process for
        making changes to a Recommendation. Please see also the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/republishing/">Requirements
           for modification of W3C Technical Reports</a> [<a href="#in-place-tr-mod">PUB35</a>].</p>
      <p>
        <svg xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
          viewBox="0 0 500 160"
          height="12em"
          width="50em">
          <g id="basicProcess" opacity=".6">
            <g id="Modif-nodeWD">
              <ellipse ry="18" rx="38" cy="40" cx="147" stroke="black" fill="none"></ellipse>
              <a xlink:href="#RecsWD"><text font-size="14" font-family="Times,serif"
                  y="44"
                  x="147"
                  text-anchor="middle">WD</text></a>
            </g>
            <g id="Modif-repeatWD" stroke="black">
              <path d="M128,24C123,14 129,4 147,4 158,4 165,8 167,14" fill="none"
                stroke-dasharray="6 1"></path>
              <polygon points="170,14 166,24 164,13"></polygon> </g>
            <g class="edge" id="Modif-toCR" stroke="black" fill="black">
              <path d="M185,40h31"></path>
              <polygon points="211,36 221,40 211,44"></polygon> </g>
            <g id="Modif-nodeCR">
              <ellipse ry="18" rx="38" cy="40" cx="260" stroke="black" fill="none"></ellipse>
              <a xlink:href="#RecsCR"><text font-size="14" font-family="Times,serif"
                  y="44"
                  x="260"
                  text-anchor="middle">CR</text></a>
            </g>
            <g class="edge" id="Modif-repeatCR" stroke="black" fill="black">
              <path d="M242,24C238,14 244,4 260,4 271,4 277,8 279,14" stroke-dasharray="5 3"
                fill="none"></path>
              <polygon points="282,14 277,24 275,13"></polygon> </g>
            <g id="Modif-backToWD" stroke="#666" fill="#666">
              <path d="M190,47h34" stroke-dasharray="4 4"></path>
              <polygon points="190,45 183,47 190,49"></polygon> </g>
            <g class="edge" id="Modif-ToPR" stroke="black" fill="black">
              <path d="M298,40h27"></path>
              <polygon points="324,36 334,40 324,44"></polygon> </g>
            <g id="Modif-nodePR">
              <ellipse ry="18" rx="28" cy="40" cx="363" stroke="black" fill="none"></ellipse>
              <a xlink:href="#RecsPR"><text font-size="14" font-family="Times,serif"
                  y="44"
                  x="363"
                  text-anchor="middle">PR</text></a>
            </g>
            <g id="Modif-BackToCR" stroke="#aaa" fill="#aaa">
              <path d="M301,47h38" stroke-dasharray="2 5"></path>
              <polygon points="301,45 296,47 301,49"></polygon> </g>
            <g id="Modif-ToRec" stroke="black" fill="black">
              <path d="M391,40h20"></path>
              <polygon points="404,36 414,40 404,44"></polygon> </g> </g>
          <g id="Modif-nodeRec" stroke="black">
            <ellipse ry="18" rx="28" cy="40" cx="443" fill="none" stroke-width="2"></ellipse>
            <a xlink:href="#RecsW3C"><text font-size="16" font-family="Times,serif"
                y="44"
                x="443"
                text-anchor="middle"
                stroke-width=".3">REC</text></a></g>
          <g id="changeARec" stroke="black">
            <path d="M443,58 v20"></path><polygon points="443,78 441,71 445,71"></polygon>
            <polygon points="443,78 486,103 443,128 400,103" fill="none"></polygon>
            <text x="445" y="68" font-size="10" stroke="none">Changes to text</text>
            <text x="443" y="103" text-anchor="middle" font-size="10" stroke-width="0.2"><tspan>Substantive</tspan><tspan
                x="443"
                y="113"
                text-anchor="middle">changes?</tspan></text></g>
          <g id="RecToPR">
            <text x="370" y="100" font-size="10" stroke="none">No</text>
            <path d="M400,103h-37v-45" stroke="black" fill="none"></path><polygon
              stroke="black"
              points="363,58 361,65 365,65"></polygon></g>
          <g id="Modif-RecSubstantiveChanges" stroke="black">
            <text x="488" y="100" font-size="10" stroke-width="0.2">Yes</text>
            <path d="M486,103h20v40h-246v-15" fill="none"></path>
            <polygon points="260,128 262,133 258,133"></polygon>
            <polygon points="260,128 300,103 260,78 220,103" fill="none"></polygon>
            <text font-size="10" stroke-width="0.2" x="260" y="98" text-anchor="middle">New<tspan
                x="260"
                y="108"
                text-anchor="middle">Features?</tspan></text></g>
          <g id="Modif-NoNewFeatures">
            <path d="M260,78v-20" stroke="black"></path>
            <text x="262" y="75" font-size="10">No</text>
            <polygon points="260,58 262,63 258,63" stroke="black"></polygon> </g>
          <g id="Modif-BackToFPWD" stroke="black">
            <a xlink:href="#first-wd"><text font-size="8" font-family="Times,serif"
                y="38"
                x="66"
                stroke="none">First
-                WD</text></a>
            <path d="M220,103h-160v-63h43" fill="none"></path>
            <text x="200" y="100" stroke-width="0.2" fill="black" font-size="10">Yes</text>
            <polygon points="103,38 108,40 103,42"></polygon> </g> </svg></p>
      <h4 id="errata">7.7.1 Errata Management</h4>
      <p>Tracking errors is an important part of a Working Group's ongoing care
        of a Recommendation; for this reason, the scope of a Working Group
        charter generally allows time for work after publication of a
        Recommendation. In this Process Document, the term "erratum" (plural
        "errata") refers to any class of mistake, from mere editorial to a
        serious error that may affect the conformance with the Recommendation by
        software or content (e.g., content validity).</p>
      <p>Working Groups <em class="rfc2119">must</em> track errata on an
        "errata page." An errata page is a list of enumerated errors, possibly
        accompanied by corrections. Each Recommendation links to an errata page;
        see the Team's <a href="http://www.w3.org/Guide/pubrules">Publication
          Rules</a>.</p>
      <p>A correction is first "proposed" by the Working Group. A correction
        becomes part of the Recommendation by the process for Revising a
        Recommendation described in the next section.</p>
      <p>A Working Group <em class="rfc2119">should</em> keep their errata
        pages up-to-date, as errors are reported by readers and implementers. A
        Working Group <em class="rfc2119">must</em> report errata page changes
        to interested parties, notably when corrections are proposed or
        incorporated into an Edited Recommendation, according to the Team's
        requirements.</p>
      <h4 id="revised-rec">7.7.2 Revising a Recommendation</h4>
      <p>A Working group <em class="rfc2119">may</em> request republication of
        a Recommendation, or W3C <em class="rfc2119">may</em> republish a
        Recommendation, to make corrections that do not result in any changes to
        the text of the specification.</p>
      <p><a href="#editorial-change">Editorial changes</a> to a Recommendation
        require no technical review of the proposed changes. A Working Group <span
          class="rfc2119">may</span>
        request publication of a <a href="#rec-pr">Proposed Recommendation</a>&nbsp;
+                WD</text></a>
            <path d="M220,103h-160v-63h43" fill="none"></path>
            <text x="200" y="100" stroke-width="0.2" fill="black" font-size="10">Yes</text>
            <polygon points="103,38 108,40 103,42"></polygon> </g> </svg></p>
      <h4 id="errata">7.7.1 Errata Management</h4>
      <p>Tracking errors is an important part of a Working Group's ongoing care
        of a Recommendation; for this reason, the scope of a Working Group
        charter generally allows time for work after publication of a
        Recommendation. In this Process Document, the term "erratum" (plural
        "errata") refers to
        <meta charset="utf-8">
        any error that can be resolved by one or more changes in classes 1-3 of
        section <a href="#correction-classes">7.2.5 Classes of Changes</a>.</p>
      <p>Working Groups <em class="rfc2119">must</em> keep a
        <meta charset="utf-8">
        record as errors are reported by readers and implementers. Such error
        reports <em class="rfc2119">should</em> be processed no less frequently
        than quarterly. Readers of the Recommendation <em class="rfc2119">should</em>
        be able easily to find and see the errata that apply to that specific
        Recommendation.</p>
      <p>
        <meta charset="utf-8">
        Working groups may decide how to document errata. The best practice is a
        document that identifies itself as based on the Recommendation text and
        clearly identifies the errata and any proposed corrections; other
        approaches include various forms of an errata page, possibly
        auto-generated from a database.</p>
      <p>An correction is resolved by an informative, "proposed" correction
        generated by the Working Group. A correction becomes part of the
        Recommendation by the process for Revising a Recommendation described in
        the next section.</p>
      <h4 id="revised-rec">7.7.2 Revising a Recommendation</h4>
      <p>A Working group <em class="rfc2119">may</em> request republication of
        a Recommendation, or W3C <em class="rfc2119">may</em> republish a
        Recommendation, to make corrections that do not result in any changes to
        the text of the specification.</p>
      <p><a href="#editorial-change">Editorial changes</a> to a Recommendation
        require no technical review of the proposed changes. A Working Group <span
          class="rfc2119">may</span>
        request publication of a <a href="#rec-pr">Proposed Recommendation</a>&nbsp;
         or W3C <span class="rfc2119">may</span> publish a <a href="#rec-pr">Proposed
           Recommendation</a> to make this class of change without passing
        through earlier maturity levels. Such publications are <em class="rfc2119">may</em>
        be called a <dfn>Proposed Edited Recommendation</dfn>.</p>
      <p>To make corrections to a Recommendation that produce <a href="#substantive-change">substantive
           changes</a> but do not add new features, a Working Group <span class="rfc2119">may</span>
        request publication of a <a href="#last-call">Candidate Recommendation</a>,
        without passing through earlier maturity levels.</p>
      <p>In the latter two cases, the resulting Recommendation <em class="rfc2119">may</em>
        be called an <dfn id="rec-edited">Edited Recommendation</dfn>.</p>
      <p>When requesting the publication of an edited Recommendation as
        described in this section, in addition to meeting the requirements for
        the relevant maturity level, a Working Group</p>
      <ul>
        <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the changes to the document
          have received <a href="#wide-review">wide review</a>, and </li>
        <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> address all recorded errata.</li>
      </ul>
      <p>For changes which introduces a new feature or features, W3C <span class="rfc2119">must</span>
        follow the full process of <a href="#rec-advance">advancing a technical
          report to Recommendation</a> beginning with a new First Public Working
        Draft.</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 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
        consensus for 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
          changes to the technical report since any previous publication.</li>
      </ul>
      <p>Possible next steps:</p>
      <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
          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="#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>] does not specify
        any licensing requirements or commitments for Working Group Notes.</p>
      <h3 id="rec-rescind">7.9 Rescinding a W3C Recommendation</h3>
      <p>W3C <em class="rfc2119">may</em> rescind a Recommendation, for example
        if the Recommendation contains many errors that conflict with a later
        version or if W3C discovers burdensome patent claims that affect
        implementers and cannot be resolved; see the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C
@@ -215,4 +215,4 @@
               Notice and License</a></cite></dd>
        <dt id="rdf-translations">[PUB20]</dt>
        <dd><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Translation/">Translations
               of W3C technical reports</a></cite></dd>
        <dt id="rdf-pub-mailing-lists">[PUB21]</dt>
        <dd><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/Mail/">Public W3C mailing lists</a></cite></dd>
        <dt id="rdf-coi">[PUB23]</dt>
        <dd><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/06-conflictpolicy">Conflict
              of Interest Policy for W3C Team Members Engaged in Outside
              Professional Activities</a></cite></dd>
        <dt id="rdf-tag-charter">[PUB25]</dt>
        <dd><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/2001/07/19-tag">Technical
              Architecture Group (TAG) Charter</a></cite></dd>
        <dt id="rdf-tag-home">[PUB26]</dt>
        <dd><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/">The TAG home page</a></cite></dd>
        <dt id="rdf-rec-tips">[PUB27]</dt>
        <dd><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/05/rec-tips">Tips for Getting
              to Recommendation Faster</a></cite></dd>
        <dt id="rdf-liaison-list">[PUB28]</dt>
        <dd><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison">W3C liaisons
              with other organizations</a></cite></dd>
        <dt id="rdf-ab-home">[PUB30]</dt>
        <dd><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/ab/">The Advisory Board home
              page</a></cite></dd>
        <dt id="rdf-pubrules">[PUB31]</dt>
        <dd><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/Guide/pubrules">Publication Rules</a></cite></dd>
        <dt id="rdf-fellows">[PUB32]</dt>
        <dd><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Recruitment/Fellows">W3C
              Fellows Program</a></cite></dd>
        <dt id="rdf-patentpolicy">[PUB33]</dt>
        <dd><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/">5
              Feb 2004 version of the W3C Patent Policy</a></cite>. The <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/">latest
             version of the W3C Patent Policy</a> is available at
          http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/.</dd>
        <dt id="in-place-tr-mod">[PUB35]</dt>
        <dd><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/republishing/">In-place
              modification of W3C Technical Reports</a></cite></dd>
      </dl>
      <h3>13.2 <a id="member-refs">Member-only Resources</a></h3>
      <p>The following <a href="#Member-only">Member-only</a> information is
        available at the <a href="http://www.w3.org/">W3C Web site</a>.</p>
      <dl>
        <dt id="rdf-current-ac">[MEM1]</dt>
        <dd><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/Member/ACList">Current Advisory
              Committee representatives</a></cite></dd>
        <dt id="rdf-mailing-lists">[MEM2]</dt>
        <dd><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/Member/Mail/">Group mailing lists</a></cite></dd>
        <dt id="rdf-calendar">[MEM3]</dt>
        <dd>The <cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/Member/Eventscal">calendar of
              all scheduled official W3C events</a></cite></dd>
        <dt id="rdf-new-member">[MEM4]</dt>
        <dd>The <cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/Member/Intro">New Member
              Orientation</a></cite>, which includes an introduction to W3C
          processes from a practical standpoint, including relevant email
          addresses.</dd>
        <dt id="rdf-ac-meetings">[MEM5]</dt>
        <dd><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/Member/Meeting/">Advisory Committee
              meetings</a></cite></dd>
        <dt id="rdf-member-web">[MEM6]</dt>
        <dd><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/Member/">Member Web site</a></cite></dd>
        <dt id="rdf-member-sub">[MEM8]</dt>
        <dd><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/submission">How to send a
              Submission request</a></cite></dd>
        <dt id="rdf-guide">[MEM9]</dt>
        <dd><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/Guide/">The Art of Consensus</a></cite>,
          a guidebook for W3C Working Group Chairs and other collaborators</dd>
        <dt id="rdf-discipline-gl">[MEM14]</dt>
        <dd><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/09/discipline">Guidelines for
              Disciplinary Action</a></cite></dd>
        <dt id="rdf-election-howto">[MEM15]</dt>
        <dd><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/10/election-howto">How to
              Organize an Advisory Board or TAG election</a></cite></dd>
      </dl>
      <h3> id="other-refs"&gt;13.3 Other References</h3>
      <dl>
        <dt id="rdf-RFC2119">[RFC2119]</dt>
        <dd><cite><a href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt">"Key words for
              use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"</a></cite>, S.
          Bradner, March 1997.</dd>
        <dt id="ref-RFC2777">[RFC2777]</dt>
        <dd><cite><a href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2777.txt">"Publicly
              Verifiable Nomcom Random Selection"</a></cite>, D. Eastlake 3rd,
          February 2000.</dd>
      </dl>
      <h2 id="acks">14 Acknowledgments</h2>
      <p>The following individuals have contributed to this proposal for a
        revised Process: Daniel Appelquist (Telefonica), Art Barstow (Nokia),
        Robin Berjon (W3C), Judy Brewer (W3C), Marcos Cáceres (Mozilla), Wayne
        Carr (Intel), Michael Champion (W3C), Mark Crawford (SAP), Karl Dubost
        (Mozilla), Fantasai (unaffiliated), Virginie Galindo (Gemalto), Daniel
        Glazman (Disruptive Innovations), Eduardo Gutentag (unaffiiliated), Brad
        Hill (Facebook), Cullen Jennings (Cisco), Jeff Jaffe (W3C), Brain
        Kardell (JQuery), Peter Linss (HP), Nigel Megitt (BBC), Olle Olsson
        (SICS), Natasha Rooney (GSMA), Sam Ruby (IBM), David Singer (Apple),
        Henri Sivonen (Mozilla), Josh Soref (BlackBerry), Anne van Kesteren
        (Mozilla), Léonie Watson (The Paciello Group), Mike West (Google), Chris
        Wilson (Google), Steve Zilles (Adobe).</p>
      <p>The following individuals contributed to the development of earlier
        versions of the Process: Jean-François Abramatic (IBM, and previously
        ILOG and W3C), Dan Appelquist (Telefonica), Art Barstow (Nokia), Ann
        Bassetti (The Boeing Company), Jim Bell (HP), Robin Berjon (W3C), Tim
        Berners-Lee (W3C), Klaus Birkenbihl (Fraunhofer Gesellschaft), Don
        Brutzman (Web3D), Carl Cargill (Netscape, Sun Microsystems), Wayne Carr
        (Intel), Marcos Cáceres (Mozilla), Michael Champion (Microsoft), Paul
        Cotton (Microsoft), Mark Crawford (SAP), Tantek Çelik (Mozilla), Don
        Deutsch (Oracle), David Fallside (IBM), Fantasai (Mozilla), Wendy Fong
        (Hewlett-Packard), Virginie Galindo (Gemalto), Daniel Glazman
        (Disruptive Innovations), Paul Grosso (Arbortext), Eduardo Gutentag (Sun
        Microsystems), Joe Hall (CDT), Ivan Herman (W3C), Ian Hickson (Google),
        Steve Holbrook (IBM), Renato Iannella (IPR Systems), Ian Jacobs (W3C),
        Jeff Jaffe (W3C), Cullen Jennings (Cisco), Sally Khudairi (W3C), John
        Klensin (MCI), Tim Krauskopf (Spyglass), Kari Laihonen (Ericsson), Ken
        Laskey (MITRE), Ora Lassila (Nokia), Håkon Wium Lie (Opera Software),
        Chris Lilley (W3C), Bede McCall (MITRE), Giri Mandyam (Qualcomm), Larry
        Masinter (Adobe Systems), Qiuling Pan (Huawei), TV Raman (Google),
        Thomas Reardon (Microsoft), Claus von Riegen (SAP AG), David Singer
        (Apple), David Singer (IBM), Ralph Swick (W3C), Anne van Kesteren,
        Jean-Charles Verdié (MStar), Chris Wilson (Google), Lauren Wood
        (unaffiliated), and Steve Zilles (Adobe Systems).</p>
      <h2 id="changes">15 Changes</h2>
      <p>This document is based on 1 August 2014 Process. <a href="https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/">Detailed
-          change logs</a> are available.</p>
      <p>The notable changes include:</p>
      <h3>Current Editor's draft</h3>
      <ul>
        <li>Editorial cleanups</li>
      </ul>
      <h3>Previous Editor's drafts</h3>
      <ul>
        <li>Remove <a id="GCGCreation" name="CGCreation"></a><a id="GroupsCG" name="GroupsCG"></a>
          <a id="CGParticipation" name="CGParticipation"></a><a id="cgparticipant"
            name="cgparticipant"></a>
          <a id="CGCharter" name="CGCharter"></a>Coordination groups - <a href="https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/129">ISSUE-129</a></li>
        <li>Remove vestigial traces of Good Standing</li>
        <li>Loosen requirement on multiple employees of one member on TAG -
          section 2.5.1</li>
        <li>Replace "W3C Chair" with "CEO"</li>
        <li>Editorial tweaks to what is requested for review</li>
        <li>Remove section <span id="three-month-rule">6.2.7 "Heartbeat"
            publishing requirement</span></li>
      </ul>
      <h3>30 September "AC intermediate review" draft</h3>
      <p>Provided to the Advisory Committee to review the following changes made
        compared to the 1 August 2014 Operative Process document</p>
      <ul>
        <li>Remove <a id="ActivityProposal">Activities</a> from the Process (as
          resolved multiple times since 2007)</li>
        <li>Remove <a id="good-standing">6.2.1.7</a> Good Standing in a Working
          Group</li>
      </ul>
    </main>
  </body>
</html>
\ No newline at end of file
+          change logs</a> are available.</p>
      <p>The notable changes include:</p>
      <h3>Current Editor's draft</h3>
      <ul>
        <li>Editorial cleanups to <a href="#wide-review">7.2.3.1 Wide Review</a></li>
        <li>Editorial Changes to <a href="#errata">7.7.1 Errata Management</a>
          - <a href="https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/141">ISSUE-141</a></li>
      </ul>
      <h3>Previous Editor's drafts</h3>
      <ul>
        <li>Remove <a id="GCGCreation" name="CGCreation"></a><a id="GroupsCG" name="GroupsCG"></a>
          <a id="CGParticipation" name="CGParticipation"></a><a id="cgparticipant"
            name="cgparticipant"></a>
          <a id="CGCharter" name="CGCharter"></a>Coordination groups - <a href="https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/129">ISSUE-129</a></li>
        <li>Remove vestigial traces of Good Standing</li>
        <li>Loosen requirement on multiple employees of one member on TAG -
          section 2.5.1</li>
        <li>Replace "W3C Chair" with "CEO"</li>
        <li>Editorial tweaks to what is requested for review</li>
        <li>Remove section <span id="three-month-rule">6.2.7 "Heartbeat"
            publishing requirement</span></li>
      </ul>
      <h3>30 September "AC intermediate review" draft</h3>
      <p>Provided to the Advisory Committee to review the following changes made
        compared to the 1 August 2014 Operative Process document</p>
      <ul>
        <li>Remove <a id="ActivityProposal">Activities</a> from the Process (as
          resolved multiple times since 2007)</li>
        <li>Remove <a id="good-standing">6.2.1.7</a> Good Standing in a Working
          Group</li>
      </ul>
    </main>
  </body>
</html>
\ No newline at end of file