--- a/cover.html Sun Jul 31 02:08:30 2016 +0200
+++ b/cover.html Tue Aug 02 13:04:34 2016 +0200
@@ -26,15 +26,17 @@
<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">31 July 2016 Editor's Draft</h2>
+ <h2 class="notoc">2 August 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>
+ <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>Previous Editor's version:</dt>
+ <dd><a href="https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/64c6d6a5b1c0/cover.html">https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/64c6d6a5b1c0/cover.html</a></dd>
<dt>Latest operative version:</dt>
- <dd><a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/">https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/</a></dd>
+ <dd><a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/">https://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>
+ <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="https://www.w3.org/">W3C</a></dd>
</dl>
@@ -79,8 +81,11 @@
new operative Process document. If the document is accepted by the Advisory Board and the Advisory Committee,
Further revision to the Process is expected to occur in a new version.</p>
- <p>This draft removes an informative statement about conferences, and a statemnt that the Advisory Committee
- <em class="rfc2119">may</em> appeal decisions other than those defined in this Process. It also replaces the diagrams
+ <p>This draft further clarifies the requirements on charters that continue work on documents that have already been
+ published as a First Public Working Draft.</p>
+
+ <p>The 31 July draft removed an informative statement about conferences, and a statemnt that the Advisory Committee
+ <em class="rfc2119">may</em> appeal decisions other than those defined in this Process. It also replaced the diagrams
showing progression of Technical Reports with versions meant to be more accessible to a wider range of users.</p>
<p>The 28 July draft had further editorial changes to clarify "Member Consortia", voting mechanisms for elections,
@@ -516,7 +521,7 @@
</dd>
</dl>
<p>Each Member organization <em class="rfc2119">should</em> send one <a href="#member-rep">representative</a> to each Advisory
- Committee meeting. In exceptional circumstances (e.g., during a period of transition between representatives from an organization),
+ Committee Meeting. In exceptional circumstances (e.g., during a period of transition between representatives from an organization),
the meeting Chair <em class="rfc2119">may</em> allow a Member organization to send two representatives to a meeting.</p>
<p>The Team <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the date and location of each Advisory Committee meeting no later than at the end
of the previous meeting; <span class="time-interval">one year's</span> notice is preferred. The Team <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
@@ -1244,12 +1249,12 @@
<a href="#last-call">Candidate Recommendation</a> has 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
+ [<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>
<p>For a new group, this announcement officially creates the group. The announcement <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
include a reference to the <a href="#WGCharter">charter</a>, the name(s) of the group's
- <a href="#GeneralChairs">Chair(s)</a>, and the name of the <a href="#TeamContact">Team Contact</a>.</p>
+ <a href="#GeneralChairs">Chair(s)</a>, and the name(s) of the <a href="#TeamContact">Team Contact(s)</a>.</p>
<p>After a Call for Participation, any <a href="#member-rep">Member representatives</a> and
<a href="#invited-expert-wg">Invited Experts</a> <em class="rfc2119">must</em> be designated (or re-designated).</p>
@@ -1323,19 +1328,23 @@
was published.</li>
</ul>
+ <p>These data <em class=rfc2119>must</em> be identified in the charter with the labels "Adopted Working Draft",
+ "most recent Reference Draft", "most recent Candidate Recommendation", and "Other Charter", respectively.</p>
+
<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-with">section 4.1</a> of the
+ <a href="#first-wd">First Public Working Draft</a> or if no Public Working Draft has been published within 90 days of the
+ First Public Working Draft it is that First Public Working Draft. It is the specific draft against which exclusions are
+ made, as 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>].</p>
<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 Candidate Recommendation
- is deemd to be the Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation in the adopting Working Group, and that the
- Exclusion Opportunity that arose as a consequence of publishing a First Public Working Draft or Candidate Recommendation
- has finished, meaning any exclusions against those drafts must be made on joining the group, as per
- <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-join">section 4.3</a> of the
- <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C Patent Policy</a> [<a href="#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>]</p>
+ is deemed to be the Reference Draft or Candidate Recommendation of the Adopted Working Draft, and the date when the
+ Exclusion Opportunity that arose on publishing the First Public Working Draft or Candidate Recommendation
+ began and ended. As per <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-join">section 4.3</a> of
+ the <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C Patent Policy</a> [<a href="#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>],
+ this potentially means that exclusions can only be made immediately on joining a 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
an Advisory Committee Review for a charter that continues work on a document that has had a Reference Draft or
@@ -1366,27 +1375,30 @@
<li>The group produces chartered deliverables ahead of schedule.</li>
</ul>
<p>The Director closes a Working Group or Interest Group by announcement to the Advisory Committee.</p>
- <p>Closing a Working Group has implications with respect to the <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C Patent
- Policy</a> [<a href="#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>].</p>
+ <p>Closing a Working Group has implications with respect to the
+ <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C Patent Policy</a> [<a href="#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>].</p>
</section>
<h2 id="Reports">6 W3C Technical Report Development Process</h2>
- <p>The W3C technical report development process is the set of steps and requirements followed by W3C <a href="#GroupsWG">Working
- Groups</a> to standardize Web technology. The W3C technical report development process is designed to </p>
+ <p>The W3C technical report development process is the set of steps and requirements followed by W3C
+ <a href="#GroupsWG">Working Groups</a> to standardize Web technology. The W3C technical report development process
+ is designed to:</p>
<ul>
<li>support multiple specification development methodologies</li>
- <li>maximize <a href="#def-Consensus" rel="glossary" title="Definition of Consensus"><span class="dfn-instance">consensus</span></a>
+ <li>maximize
+ <a href="#def-Consensus" rel="glossary" title="Definition of Consensus"><span class="dfn-instance">consensus</span></a>
about the content of stable technical reports</li>
<li>ensure high technical and editorial quality</li>
<li>promote consistency among specifications</li>
<li>facilitate royalty-free, interoperable implementations of Web Standards, and</li>
<li>earn endorsement by W3C and the broader community.</li>
</ul>
- <p>See also the licensing goals for W3C Recommendations in <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy#sec-Licensing">section
- 2</a> of the <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C Patent Policy</a> [<a href="#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>].
+ <p>See also the licensing goals for W3C Recommendations in
+ <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy#sec-Licensing">section 2</a> of the
+ <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C Patent Policy</a> [<a href="#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>].
</p>
<h3 id="rec-advance">6.1 W3C Technical Reports</h3>
- <p>Please note that <dfn>publishing</dfn> as used in this document refers to producing a version which is listed as a W3C Technical
- Report on its <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/">Technical Reports page https://www.w3.org/TR</a>.</p>
+ <p>Please note that <dfn>publishing</dfn> as used in this document refers to producing a version which is listed as a
+ W3C Technical Report on its <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/">Technical Reports page https://www.w3.org/TR</a>.</p>
<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
@@ -1799,7 +1811,7 @@
<li><a href="#Note">Working Group Note</a></li>
</ul>
<p><a href="#AC">Advisory Committee</a> representatives <em class="rfc2119">may</em> initiate an
- <a href="#ACAppeal">Advisory COmmittee Appeal</a> of the decision to advance the technical report.</p>
+ <a href="#ACAppeal">Advisory Committee Appeal</a> of the decision to advance the technical report.</p>
<h4 id="revised-cr">6.4.1 Revising a Candidate Recommendation</h4>
@@ -1869,8 +1881,8 @@
<p>In addition to meeting the <a href="#transition-reqs">general requirements for advancement</a>,</p>
<ul>
<li>A Recommendation <em class="rfc2119">must</em> identify where errata are tracked, and</li>
- <li>A Recommendation <em class="rfc2119">must not</em> include any substantive changes from the Proposed Recommendation on which it
- is based.</li>
+ <li>A Recommendation <em class="rfc2119">must not</em> include any substantive changes from the Proposed Recommendation
+ on which it is based.</li>
<li>If there was any
<a href="#def-Dissent" rel="glossary" title="Definition of Dissent"><span class="dfn-instance">dissent</span></a>
in Advisory Committee reviews, the Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em> publish the substantive content of the dissent
@@ -2113,32 +2125,37 @@
of the Recommendation by the process for Revising a Recommendation described in the next section.</p>
<h4 id="revised-rec">6.7.2 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, provided there are no votes against the resolution to publish <em class="rfc2119">may</em> request publication of a
- <a href="#rec-pr">Proposed Recommendation</a> or W3C <em class="rfc2119">may</em> publish a <a href="#rec-pr">Proposed
- Recommendation</a> to make this class of change without passing through earlier maturity levels. Such publications <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, or where there were votes against publishing the corrections directly as a <a href="#rec-pr">Proposed Recommendation</a>,
- a Working Group <em class="rfc2119">may</em> 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>
+ <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, provided there are no votes against the resolution to publish <em class="rfc2119">may</em> request
+ publication of a <a href="#rec-pr">Proposed Recommendation</a> or W3C <em class="rfc2119">may</em> publish a
+ <a href="#rec-pr">Proposed Recommendation</a> to make this class of change without passing through earlier maturity levels.
+ Such publications <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, or where there were votes against publishing the corrections directly as a
+ <a href="#rec-pr">Proposed Recommendation</a>, a Working Group <em class="rfc2119">may</em> 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">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 <em class="rfc2119">must</em> 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>
+ <p>For changes which introduces a new feature or features, W3C <em class="rfc2119">must</em> 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">6.8 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>
+ 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>
@@ -2149,11 +2166,11 @@
<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>
+ <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="https://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>
+ <p>The <a href="https://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">6.9 Obsoleting or Rescinding a W3C Recommendation</h3>
@@ -2169,7 +2186,7 @@
using the same process as for obsoleting a Recommendation, if for example a specification is later more broadly
adopted.</p>
- <p>W3C only rescnds or obsoletes entire Recommendations. To rescind or obsolete some part of a Recommendation,
+ <p>W3C only rescinds or obsoletes entire Recommendations. To rescind or obsolete some part of a Recommendation,
W3C follows the process for <a href="#rec-modify">modifying a Recommendation</a>.</p>
<p class="note">For the purposes of the <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C Patent Policy</a>
@@ -2177,9 +2194,9 @@
although it is not recommended for future implementation; a Rescinded Recommendation ceases to be in effect
and no new licenses are granted under the Patent Policy.</p>
- <p>The director <em class="rfc2119">may</em> Recommend obsoleting or rescinding a recommendation. The director
- <em class="rfc2119">must</em> begin a review of a proposal to obsolete or rescind a recommendation when requested
- to do so by any of the following:</p>
+ <p>The Director <em class="rfc2119">may</em> recommend obsoleting or rescinding a Recommendation. The Director
+ <em class="rfc2119">must</em> begin a review of a proposal to obsolete, un-obsolete or rescind a Recommendation
+ when requested to do so by any of the following:</p>
<ul>
<li>The Working Group who produced, or is chartered to maintain, the Recommendation.</li>
@@ -2701,8 +2718,7 @@
<p>The following individuals have contributed to this proposal for a revised Process: Daniel Appelquist,
David Baron (Mozilla), J Alan Bird (W3C), Carine Bournez (W3C), Wayne Carr (Intel),
Tantek Çelik (Mozilla), Michael Champion (W3C), Maria Courtemanche (IBM), Donald Deutsch (Oracle),
- Geoffrey Creighton (Microsoft),
- Kevin Fleming (Bloomberg), Virginia Fournier (Apple), Virginie Galindo (Gemalto),
+ Geoffrey Creighton (Microsoft), Kevin Fleming (Bloomberg), Virginia Fournier (Apple), Virginie Galindo (Gemalto),
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, Ralph Swick (W3C),
@@ -2737,6 +2753,14 @@
<h3>Current draft</h3>
<ul>
+ <li>Clearer requirements for charters which continue work that has already had an Exclusion Opportunity
+ - section <a href="#WGCharter">5.2.6</a>.</li>
+ </ul>
+
+ <h3>Between the <a href="https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/64c6d6a5b1c0/cover.html">31 July 2016 Draft</a> and
+ the <a href="https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/9827cf0fed91/cover.html">28 July 2016 draft</a>:</h3>
+
+ <ul>
<li>Replace diagrams of Recommendation track with new versions to improve accessibility
- section <a href="#recs-and-notes">6.1.1</a> and section <a href="#rec-modify">6.7</a></li>
<li>Remove mention of appeal for decisions not defined in the Process