From e94d2248f90cb7d1f0d5babf1969924dc6a66d1c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Florian Rivoal Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:19:00 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] Remove the Proposed Recommendation Phase Proposed Recommendation is only a transitional phase. Nothing stays there: either the transition is approved and the spec goes to REC, or it's not and it reverts to a lower maturity. The things that happen during PR are useful, but they don't really depend on there being an explicit phase with an explicit publication, so we can simplify things by folding all of this into the transition from CR to REC, without a distinct phase. Part of https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/861 Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr Co-authored-by: fantasai Co-authored-by: Nigel Megitt --- index.bs | 218 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------------- 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 137 deletions(-) diff --git a/index.bs b/index.bs index 262dd78d..73435f5b 100644 --- a/index.bs +++ b/index.bs @@ -719,8 +719,8 @@ Role of the Advisory Committee
  • reviewing formal proposals of W3C: Charter Proposals, - Proposed Recommendations, - and Proposed Process Documents. + transitions to Recommendation, + and proposed Process Documents.
  • electing the Advisory Board participants other than the Advisory Board Chair. @@ -2702,11 +2702,16 @@ Determining the W3C Decision those other conditions must also be re-fulfilled.
    - For example, to make [=substantive changes=] to a [=Proposed Recommendations=], - the [=technical report=] could be returned to [=Candidate Recommendation=]. + For example, if [=substantive changes=] to a [=technical report=] + are requested when assessing the transition from + [=Candidate Recommendation=] to [=Recommendation=], + the technical report would need to go through a new [=Update Request=] + and be republished as a new [=Candidate Recommendation=]; + that new version would then need to satisfy the criteria for advancement. Alternatively, the desired changes can be introduced as non-substantive amendments using the process for [[#revising-rec|revising a Recommendation]]. - However, they cannot be directly integrated between [=PR=] and [=REC=], + However, with the exception of the removal of at-risk features, + they cannot be directly integrated between [=CRS=] and [=REC=], because that would fail to trigger a patent exclusion opportunity.
    @@ -3229,12 +3234,11 @@ The W3C Recommendation Track
  • Publication of the [=First Public Working Draft=].
  • Publication of zero or more revised [=Working Drafts=].
  • Publication of one or more [=Candidate Recommendations=]. -
  • Publication of a [=Proposed Recommendation=].
  • Publication as a [=W3C Recommendation=]. A W3C Recommendation Track document - is any document whose current status is one of the five in the numbered list above. + is any document whose current status is one of the four in the numbered list above. 
    @@ -3375,20 +3379,6 @@ Maturity Stages on the Recommendation Track
 			in the W3C Patent Policy [[!PATENT-POLICY]]
 			for implication on patent licensing obligations.
 
-		
    
-			Proposed Recommendation (PR)
-		
    
-			A Proposed Recommendation is a document
-			that has been accepted by W3C
-			as of sufficient quality to become a [=W3C Recommendation=].
-			This phase triggers formal review by the [=Advisory Committee=],
-			who may recommend
-			that the document be [=published=] as a [=W3C Recommendation=],
-			returned to the [=Working Group=] for further work,
-			or abandoned.
-			[=Substantive changes=] must not be made to a [=Proposed Recommendation=]
-			except by [=publishing=] a new [=Working Draft=] or [=Candidate Recommendation=].
-
 		
    
 			W3C Recommendation (REC)
 		
    
@@ -3402,6 +3392,20 @@ Maturity Stages on the Recommendation Track
 			The W3C Royalty-Free IPR licenses
 			granted under the W3C Patent Policy [[PATENT-POLICY]]
 			apply to [=W3C Recommendations=].
+
+			
    
+			After its initial publication,
+			a [=W3C Recommendation=] may be [[#revising-rec|revised]]
+			to address [=editorial change|editorial=] or [=substantive change|substantive=] issues
+			that are discovered later.
+			However, new features can only be added
+			if the document already identifies itself
+			as intending to allow new features.
+			Such an allowance cannot be added
+			to a [=technical report=] previously published as a [=Recommendation=]
+			that did not allow such changes;
+			this requires a new [=technical report=], that could, for example, be similarly named but with an incremented version number.
+
 			As technology evolves,
 			a [=W3C Recommendation=] may become:
 			
    
@@ -3572,7 +3576,7 @@ Advancement on the Recommendation Track
 	so many requirements do not apply,
 	and verification is normally fairly straightforward.
 	For later stages,
-	especially transition to [=Candidate Recommendation|Candidate=] or [=Proposed Recommendation=],
+	especially transitions to [=Candidate Recommendation|Candidate=] or [=Recommendation=],
 	there is usually a formal review meeting
 	to verify that the requirements have been met.
 
@@ -3753,8 +3757,8 @@ Transitioning to Candidate Recommendation
 		
  • 
 			may identify features in the document as at risk.
 			These features may be removed
-			before advancement to [=Proposed Recommendation=]
-			without a requirement to publish a new [=Candidate Recommendation=].
+			before advancement to [=Recommendation=]
+			without requiring an [=Update Request=].
 	
 
 	The first Candidate Recommendation publication
@@ -3771,7 +3775,7 @@ Transitioning to Candidate Recommendation
 		
  • Return to Working Draft
    • 
 		
  • A revised Candidate Recommendation Snapshot
    • 
 		
  • A revised Candidate Recommendation Draft
    • 
-		
  • Proposed Recommendation
    • 
+		
  • Recommendation
    • 
 		
  • Discontinued Draft
    • 
 	
 
@@ -3801,8 +3805,8 @@ Publishing a [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=]
 		
  • 
 			may identify features in the document as [=at risk=].
 			These features may be removed
-			before advancement to [=Proposed Recommendation=]
-			without a requirement to publish a new [=Candidate Recommendation=].
+			before advancement to [=Recommendation=]
+			without requiring an [=Update Request=].
 	
 
 	The [=Team=] must announce
@@ -3876,45 +3880,44 @@ Publishing a [=Candidate Recommendation Draft=]
 		
  • Return to Working Draft
    • 
 		
  • A revised Candidate Recommendation Snapshot
    • 
 		
  • A revised Candidate Recommendation Draft
    • 
-		
  • Proposed Recommendation,
+		
  • Recommendation,
 		if there are no [=substantive change=] other than dropping [=at risk=] features
    • 
 		
  • Discontinued Draft
    • 
 	
 
+
    
+Transitioning to Recommendation
    
 
-
    
-Transitioning to Proposed Recommendation
    
+	When a [=Working Group=] estimates
+	that a [=Candidate Recommendation=] has fulfilled all the relevant criteria,
+	it may [=group decision|decide=] to request advancement to [=W3C Recommendation=].
 
 	In addition to meeting the requirements for advancement,
+	the Working Group:
 
 	
      
 		
    • 
-			The status information must specify the deadline for [=Advisory Committee review=],
-			which must be at least 28 days
-			after the publication of the [=Proposed Recommendation=]
-			and should be at least 10 days
-			after the end of the last Exclusion Opportunity
-			per ”Exclusion From W3C RF Licensing Requirements”
-			in the W3C Patent Policy [[!PATENT-POLICY]].
-	
    
+			must show [=adequate implementation experience=]
+			except where an exception is approved by a [=Team Decision=].
 
-	A Working Group:
+			The [=Team=] may approve a [=Candidate Recommendation=]
+			with minimal implementation experience
+			where there is a compelling reason to do so.
+			In such a case, the [=Team=] must explain the reasons for that decision,
+			and that information must be included in the [=Call for Review=]
+			proposing advancement to [=W3C Recommendation=].
 
-	
      
-		
    • 
-			must show [=adequate implementation experience=]
-			except where an exception is approved by a [=Team Decision=],
 		
    • 
-			must show that the document has received [=wide review=],
+			must show that the document has received [=wide review=].
 
 		
    • 
 			must show that all issues
 			raised during the [=Candidate Recommendation review period=]
-			have been [=formally addressed=],
+			have been [=formally addressed=].
 
 		
    • 
 			must identify any substantive issues
-			raised since the close of the [=Candidate Recommendation review period=],
+			raised since the close of the [=Candidate Recommendation review period=].
 
 		
    • 
 			must not have made any [=substantive changes=] to the document
@@ -3925,97 +3928,43 @@ Transitioning to Proposed Recommendation
 			may have removed features
 			identified in the [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=] document as [=at risk=]
 			without republishing the specification as a [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=].
-	
    
-
-	The [=Team=]:
-
-	
      
-		
    • 
-			must announce the publication of a [=Proposed Recommendation=]
-			to the Advisory Committee,
-			and must begin an [=Advisory Committee Review=]
-			on the question of whether the specification is appropriate to [=publish=] as a [=W3C Recommendation=].
-
-		
    • 
-			may approve a [=Proposed Recommendation=]
-			with minimal implementation experience
-			where there is a compelling reason to do so.
-			In such a case, the [=Team=] must explain the reasons for that decision,
-			and that information must be included in the [=Call for Review=]
-			proposing advancement to [=W3C Recommendation=].
-	
    
-
-	Since a [=W3C Recommendation=] must not include any [=substantive changes=]
-	from the [=Proposed Recommendation=] it is based on,
-	to make any [=substantive change=] to a [=Proposed Recommendation=]
-	the [=Working Group=] must return the specification to [=Candidate Recommendation=]
-	or [=Working Draft=].
-
-	
    
-	A [=Proposed Recommendation=] may identify itself
-	as intending to allow new features
-	(class 4 changes)
-	after its initial publication as a [=Recommendation=],
-	as described in [[#revised-rec-features]].
-	Such an allowance cannot be added
-	to a [=technical report=] previously published as a [=Recommendation=]
-	that did not allow such changes.
-
-	Possible Next Steps:
-
-	
    
 
-	[=Advisory Committee representatives=] may initiate an [=Advisory Committee Appeal=]
-	of the decision to advance the technical report.
+	Additionally,
+	if the document has previously been published as a [=W3C Recommendation=], the [=Working Group=]
+	must not include any class 4 change
+	to that publication
+	unless it was explicitly marked as [=allowing new features=],
+	and must not include any such marking
+	if not already present.
+
+	If all the criteria above are fulfilled,
+	the [=Team=] must begin an [=Advisory Committee Review=]
+	on the question of whether the specification is appropriate to [=publish=] as a [=W3C Recommendation=].
+	The deadline for [=Advisory Committee review=]
+	must allow at least 28 days,
+	and should end at least 10 days
+	after the end of the last Exclusion Opportunity
+	per ”Exclusion From W3C RF Licensing Requirements”
+	in the W3C Patent Policy [[!PATENT-POLICY]].
 
-
    
-Transitioning to W3C Recommendation
    
+	If there was any [=dissent=] in Advisory Committee reviews,
+	the [=Team=] must publish the substantive content of the dissent
+	to W3C and the general public,
+	and must [=formally address=] the comment
+	at least 14 days before publication as a [=W3C Recommendation=].
 
 	The decision to advance a document to [=Recommendation=]
 	is a [=W3C Decision=].
-
-	In addition to meeting the requirements for advancement,
-
-	
      
-		
    • 
-			A [=Recommendation=] must identify where errata are tracked, and
-
-		
    • 
-			A [=Recommendation=] must not include any [=substantive changes=]
-			from the [=Proposed Recommendation=]
-			on which it is based.
-
-		
    • 
-			If there was any [=dissent=] in Advisory Committee reviews,
-			the [=Team=] must publish the substantive content of the dissent
-			to W3C and the general public,
-			and must [=formally address=] the comment
-			at least 14 days before publication as a [=W3C Recommendation=].
-
-		
    • 
-			[=Advisory Committee representatives=] may initiate
-			an [=Advisory Committee Appeal=]
-			of the [=W3C decision=]
-
-		
    • 
-			The [=Team=] must announce the publication of a [=W3C Recommendation=]
-			to Advisory Committee,
-			other W3C groups
-			and to the public.
-	
    
+	The [=Team=] must announce the publication of a [=W3C Recommendation=]
+	to the Advisory Committee,
+	to other W3C groups
+	and to the public.
+	[=Advisory Committee representatives=] may initiate an [=Advisory Committee Appeal=]
+	of the decision to advance the technical report.
 
 	Possible next steps:
 	A [=W3C Recommendation=] normally retains its status indefinitely.
@@ -4027,6 +3976,7 @@ Transitioning to W3C Recommendation
 
 		
  • 
 			republished as a Candidate Recommendation
+			or Working Draft
 			to be developed towards a revised [=Recommendation=], or
 
 		
  • 
@@ -4709,15 +4659,9 @@ Publishing Registries
 			Obsolete Registry and Superseded Registry.
 
 		
  • 
-			There is no equivalent to the Proposed Recommendation phase.
-			Instead,
-			an [=Advisory Committee Review=] is started
-			upon publication of each [=Candidate Registry Snapshot=].
-
-		
  • 
-			Changes that add new features (i.e. [[#correction-classes|class 4 changes]]) are allowed
+			Changes that add new features (i.e., [[#correction-classes|class 4 changes]]) are allowed
 			in all [=W3C Registries=],
-			without needing the to explicitly indicate that this is allowed.
+			without needing them to explicitly indicate that this is allowed.