W3C
Changes to the W3C Process Document
Last revised $Date: 2005年10月18日 20:08:03 $
All changes to the Process Document listed here have been reviewed by the
W3C Advisory Board.
Some changes are not listed here including spelling fixes, wording
changes, some structural changes, and updates to the Appendixes.
Changes to intermediate drafts are
available to the Membership.
These are the most significant changes in the
14 October 2005 W3C Process Document;
see the differences since the 5 February 2004 version for a detailed view of all changes.
- 2.2.1 Team Submissions: Clarification that the level of
consensus represented by a Team Submission is explained in the status
section of the document.
- 2.5.2 Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Elections:
New process for assigning short terms in TAG and AB elections - terms
are assigned based on number of votes received. Ties, including when number of nominees equals number of seats, still handled by application of RFC2777.
- 2.5.3 Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Vacated Seats:
Director may re-appoint TAG participant immediately when appointed seat
is vacated. For elected seats, Chair may request an election prior to the
next regularly scheduled election to fill seat(s) sooner.
- 3.3 Consensus: Definition of consensus and dissent now use
written in terms of
Formal Objections. A "Formal Objection" is one with process impliciations -- these are reported to the Director at transitions. The term is
defined in section 3.3.2 and is capitalized throughout the document. Also in section 3.3.2, clarification that Calls for Review to the AC must
identify all Formal Objections (i.e., those that have been sustained).
- 6
Working Groups, Interest Groups, and Coordination Groups: The
constraint that IGs must not have good standing requirements has been
removed. In general, however, IGs do not have good standing
requirements.
- 6.2.1.7 Good Standing in a Working Group: New text regarding (1) standing after a Call for Participation (2) how a representative who takes over for another one inherits standing, and (3) how standing is aquired when a new organization joins a group (later than first meeting after a CFP).
- 6.2.7
Working Group "Heartbeat" Requirement: Clarifications to intent of
heartbeat required (also known as the "three-month rule"). Addition of
text regarding value of public progress reports even when a group does
not publish a new draft at least once every three months.
- 7 W3C
Technical Report Development Process: the term "Recommendation
Track" has had its formal meaning narrowed to those documents intended
to become W3C Recommendations (rather than the previous definition, which encompassed all W3C Technical Reports).
- 7.3
Reviews and Review Responsibilities: Groups are no longer required
to formally address comments made before Last Call. They SHOULD do so,
however. This describes how groups operate in practice.
- 10 Liaisons: There is no longer a process for creating a formal liaison.
Section 10 has shrunk to only a few points about Team organization
of liaisons and MoUs. Guidance on creating liaisons has been moved
to the W3C Web site.
Almost all of the changes in this revision were to align the
Process Document with the W3C
Patent Policy. In addition, some bugs were fixed and some sections
were editorially improved.
- General changes for alignment with Patent Policy:
- Numerous cross references to specific sections of policy
- Status section: New text about normative
relation between process document and patent policy
- Introduction: Editorial improvements to introduction.
- 2.5.1 Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group
Participation. Clarification about nature of TAG/AB participation
but also responsibilities associated with Member/Team/IE
relationship
- 2.5.2 Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Elections:
Clarification about what information/commitment is required of
nominee/Member at nomination time for AB/TAG.
- 2.5.3 Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Vacated
Seats: Good standing is indicated as one example of (instead of
only reason) why Chair
might ask for resignation.
- 3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.4: These sections edited to read more
smoothly. The definition of consensus was changed to correspond
more closely to English usage. Unanimity is considered a subclass of
Consensus. The terms "quorum" and "supermajority" had
been used but their usage was unclear. Also, clarified that
abstention is either explicit comment or silence.
- 3.6 Resignation from a Group: New section since Good Standing
no longer means "not participating" as there are patent policy
implications to leaving a group.
- Deleted old section 4.2 Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy
References to this section were replaced with references to the
Patent Policy.
- 6.1 Requirements for All Working, Interest, and Coordination
Groups: Clarification that Chair is a Member representative or a Team
representative or an Invited Expert and that requirements of this
document that apply to those types of participants apply to Chairs as
well.
- 6.2.1 Working Group and Interest Group Participation Requirements:
To align with the Patent Policy, defined clear participation start and
end points for all types of participants; no longer tied to "good
standing". This is emphasized at the end of section 6.2.1.7.
However, voting is tied to good standing.
- 6.2.7 Working Group "Heartbeat" Requirement: Added example
- 7.2 General Requirements for Advancement: For clarity, split
FPWD and LC requirements from other requirements. Also fixed some
bugs in this section.
- 7.3 Reviews and Review Responsibilities: Clarification
that during PR, PER, and PR-RSCND reviews, the Director is
responsible for addressing AC review comments (and does so
with the help of the WG).
- 7.4.1: Added cross-ref to patent policy. Per request from
Ken Laskey, added more info about ongoing work developing WDs.
- 7.4.2 Last Call: Took announcement and entrance
requirements out of earlier section and
copied here to make easier to read.
- 7.4.4 Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation.
Possible to go from PR to CR.
- 7.6.3 Call for Review of an Edited Recommendation.
Copied announcement reqs here to make easier to read.
- 7.6.4 Call for Review of Proposed Corrections: Clarification
that this is not a formal AC review.
Copied announcement reqs here to make easier to read.
- 7.7.1 Proposal to Rescind a Recommendation:
Copied announcement reqs here to make easier to read.
- 7.8 General info about Tech Reports. New!
WG Editors must be WG participants. TAG/AB participants
handled differently. This is for the Patent policy.
- 8 Advisory Committee Reviews, Appeals, and Votes: Added
some missing info in bulleted lists.
- 8.1.1 Start of a review period: Removed some unnecessary
administrative detail.
- 10 Liaisons: Clarification that parts of 10 are about
formal liaisons only.
- 11.1.2 Information required in a submission request. Per issue
218, put back requirements from Web page to Proc Doc; updated for
patent policy.
- 13.1 Public Resources: Added ref to patent policy
- Editorial: Capitalization of "Invited Expert", "First Public
Working Draft"
18 June 2003 Process Document
This document represents a substantial revision from the 19 July 2001
Process Document. We only identify the primary changes below.
- Introduction
- A new introduction highlights how the entire W3C Process is
supposed to work, and how W3C gets work done
- A number of sections, starting with the Introduction, have been
revised to clarify that Membership participation is possible in the
early states of organizing W3C work.
- 2 Members, AC, Team, AB, TAG
- 2.5.2 AB/TAG Vacated Seats. To simplify the process and promote
continuity, the AB changed the process for handling vacated TAG/AB
seats. If a person changes affiliations, that person may continue
to participate until next regularly scheduled election. If not, or
if the seat was vacated for other reasons, the seat remains open
until next election; there are no more special election.
- 3 General Policies for W3C Groups
- This version of the document harmonizes voting, consensus, and
meeting processes for all types of W3C groups
(TAG/AB/WG/IG/CG).
- 3.1.1 Conflict of interest policy. This Process Document
clarifies the conflict of interest policy by including scenarios
when disclosure is appropriate and expected.
- 3.4 Votes: Requirements related to voting were centralized and
clarified in section 3.4. Some changes include voting by proxy, one
vote per organization, and more. For the purposes of voting, a
related Members considered one organization and the Team considered
one organization. In section 6.2.1.3, an invited expert must
identify the organization, if any, the individual represents as a
participant in this group. This is important for voting, since an
organization only gets one vote when a vote is conducted. The
Process Document now recommends that charters include formal voting
procedures (though consensus is still emphasized) to set
expectations about how votes will be conducted when they are
required.
- 4 Dissemination and IPR policies
- 4.1 New: New section clarifying confidentiality
levels of W3C resources
- There are no changes regarding IPR in this
version of the Process Document. The next Process Document will be
harmonized with the newly approved Patent Policy.
- 7 Recommendation Track Process
- The description of the Recommendation track has been
significantly changed to focus on steps to Recommendation rather
than document maturity levels. The process itself is very much the
same, just described differently.
- 7.2, 7.3 New: A section describing review
expectations and a section describing WG requirements at any
transition. Some of this information was in previous versions of
the Process Document but was spread out. However, there are new
statements designed to set clearer expectations for all parties
(WGs and reviewers).
- 7.4.2 Last Call. The AB clarified some points about the meaning
of last call, in particular, that:
- Last call is a signal that the WG believes that it has
satisfied technical requirements. These requirements
include satisfying chartered dependencies with other
groups.
- Working Groups should work with other groups before
last call to reduce surprises. The last call announcement
is an alert to other groups to confirm that dependencies
have been satisfied.
- 7.4.3 New: The Process Document allows a WG to
declare features at risk, and then to delete them based on
implementation experience, and still advance to Proposed
Recommendation.
- 7.4.6 New: A section describing what it means
when a document is sent back to a WG for further work.
- 7.6 New: Processes for modification of a
Recommendation, including a process for making corrections
normative without immediate republication. Republication within a
specified time frame (6 months) is required to strike a balance
between the need for prompt action and the need for readable,
coherent specifications. Also, 7.6.1 is a new section on errata
management, and 7.6.2 is a new section no classes of modifications
to a Recommendation.
- 7.7 New: Processes for rescinding a W3C
Recommendation.
- There are suggestions for "getting to Recommendation faster",
including additions to the Activity/Charter creation process for
raising Member awareness in the Activity Proposal/Charter
development process.
- All documented objections must be public, even if anonymized.
- WG can publish at same maturity level when no substantive
changes. Between publication of the first public Working Draft and
Last Call announcement, a Working Group publishes revisions that
generally include substantive changes. Between any two steps after
a Last Call announcement, the Working Group MAY publish a new draft
of the technical report at the same maturity level provided there
are no substantive changes since the earlier step. Example: After a
last call, publishing a Working Draft with some clarifications,
then requesting to advance to CR.
- The label "Note" is deprecated in favor of "Working Group Note"
(for WG output) and "Member Submission" and "Team Submission" (for
input to W3C Activities).
- 6 Working Groups, Interest Groups, and Coordination Groups
- 6.2.1 The definition of "Working Group participant" has been
clarified to meet the needs of the Patent Policy Working Group.
There is one section for each type of participant in a WG or IG.
Also, the description for how one becomes a participant of a
Working Group has been clarified. Finally, the use of the term
"alternate" to mean a temporary replacement for a participant has
been changed to "substitute" and the process for designating a
substitute has been clarified. A "substitute" is someone who
attends a meeting on an exceptional basis, not a regular
participant.
- 6.2.1.7 Good standing requirements. Although all participants
representing an organization should attend all meetings, attendance
by one representative of an organization satisfies the meeting
attendance requirement for all representatives of the organization.
The point of this is that in some WGs, two people participate fully
w.r.t. other good standing requirements (keeping up on mail,
providing deliverables) but don't attend all meetings (e.g., for
reasons of cost). The document has been clarified to indicate that
both participants are full participants (one was sometimes called
the alternate) and that participation by either at a meeting is
sufficient to establish good standing (at that meeting) for the
organization they represent.
- 6.2.3 The Director must call for AC review of all new or
substantially modified charters.
- 6.2.6 WG and IG charters must be public.
- 6.2.7 WG Heartbeat Requirement. Requires publication of at least
one WG deliverable at least every three months on the TR page.
- 8 AC Reviews, Appeals, Votes
- 8.2, 8.3: This version of the Process Document simplified the
processes for both AC votes and appeals, removing detailed voting
instructions and having a single duration (3 weeks) as the window
for an AC appeal.
- 10 Liaisons (New)
- This is a new section of the Process Document, adding a way to
create a formal liaison for coordinated work between W3C and a
partner organization.
- The section includes a process whereby the Director may sign
Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with other organizations, subject
to appeal by the AC. A memorandum of understanding must be made
available to Members and, after approval, should be made
public.
- 11 Member Submission Process
- 11.1.1 Scope of Submissions. When a technology overlaps in scope
with the work of a chartered Working Group, Members SHOULD
participate in the Working Group and contribute the technology to
the group's process.
- To help avoid confusion between input to W3C Activities and
output from W3C Activities, Member and Team Submissions will be
published using different labels and styles. They will no longer be
linked from the TR page, but will be linked from their own index
pages.
19 July 2001 Process Document
This document incorporates the Technical Architecture
Group (TAG).
8 February 2001 Process Document
This document has undergone substantial revision since the 11 November 1999 version. The Advisory Committee
was invited to review the document twice, and their comments have been
integrated. Many comments from the Team and Advisory Board have also been
integrated. Because there have been so many changes over the eight internal
drafts since 11 November 1999, only major changes are highlighted here. This
is a shorter document for a number of reasons: some redundancies deleted and
lots of information moved to the Web (e.g., information about communications,
details for Members about Submission requests, etc.). A detailed list of changes is available to
Members.
- The number of roles assigned to the Director has been decreased
significantly. The process document now uses the term "W3C decision"
instead of "Director's decision" where the Director or Chairman assesses
consensus, but does not make a decision in a vacuum.
- The Chairman has additional roles in this document, notably with
respect to the Process Document, the AB, and the AC.
- Section 1.1 AC Meetings: One year advance notice of region
required.
- Section 1.3 Advisory Board: Clarifications about the election process,
including short terms.
- Section 2.2: The IPR policy has been modified so that individuals speak
about personal knowledge of IPR claims. Note that all participants must
disclose (including invited experts).
- Section 2.3.1: More clear about conflict of interest issues: WG, CG,
AB, and AC participants must disclose information about relationships
with W3C Members who are not their employers when the relationships might
be perceived as causing a conflict of interest. Addition of a link to the
Team conflict of interest policy.
- Section 3: The description of W3C Activities has been clarified.
- Section 4: WGs, IGs, and CGs: Statement that Chair and Team contact for
a group should not be the same individual.
- Section 4: WGs and IGs treated separately from CGs. Clarifications to
creation, modification, extension of each type of group. Clarifications
about how to join, who may join, and requirements for participation.
- Section 4.1.1 Meetings: face-to-face and distributed meetings defined.
New table showing meeting requirements.
- Section 4.1.2 Group Consensus and votes: Improved description of
consensus. Added requirement to formally address comments (with
definition). Objections should include counter-proposals (but are not
required to).
- Section 4.2: WGs and IGs: Participation is well-defined. Introduced
definition of "alternate". Clarification that WGs and IGs may create task
forces to get work done.
- Section 4.2.2 WG and IG Charters: Reviews of other groups' work are
first-class deliverables. Chair and Team contact must agree on
participant standing. Director is tie-breaker. WG charters may include
quorum requirements for votes (to avoid indifference in
decision-making).
- Section 4.2.2 WG and IG Charters: Added a requirement that the charter
for any WG that is not public must explain why.
- Section 4.2.3: An invited expert is a participant who is not an
employee of a W3C Member. There is no "one-time participation" in a
meeting, due to IPR issues and more.
- Section 4.2.4: Good standing: Four commitment criteria, good standing
clarified.
- Section 4.2.5 WG Status reports: The "three-month" rule has been fixed:
the WG is not required to publish a document every three months, but must
give an update every three months, which may manifest itself as a
published document.
- 4.3 Coordination Groups: Added that external liaisons must be
coordinated by the Team. Clarification that CGs may create task forces to
get work done.
- Section 5 Tech reports: Harmonization of description of different
maturity levels and transitions: WG must meet requirements, address
issues, report objections, satisfy dependences, and show
implementation.
- Section 5.1: Team's publication rules are subject to change without
requiring a change to the Process Document.
- Section 5.1.1 Document status section: Add information that status
section of a Note should set expectations about whether w3c will respond
to comments about the Note.
- Section 5.2 Rec track: Clearer statement up front about differences
between maturity levels. For transitions, a WG must fulfill requirements
or document/report those it does not fulfill. New graphic showing
document transitions. Throughout this section, encourage early Advisory
Committee review of tech reports to avoid slow-downs late in the
process.
- Section 5.2.1 WD: WGs should negotiate review schedules with other
WGs.
- Section 5.2.2 LC: If the Director denies a request to advance from last
Call to PR or CR, the Director must announce to Chairs. This is
consistent with the announcement to the AC for CR/PR decisions.
- Section 5.2.4: Standard implementation requirements for entering
Proposed Recommendation. Clarification that CR has a minimal review
period, but no specified end date - CR ends when the WG requests to
advance to PR. Note that a document may go from PR back to CR or WD. If
Director hasn't announced outcome after three weeks, must provide an
update to the AC.
- Section 6.1 AC reviews: No more restriction to one review per group of
related Members. Also, no restriction about Host AC reps being able to
send in reviews. In short: every Member is encouraged to respond to calls
for review.
- Section 6.2 AC appeals: AC reps may appeal most decisions, including
W3C Decisions. AC reps may appeal rejected Submissions.
- Section 7 Workshops and Symposia: Since almost the same, text
significantly shared. W3C doesn't sponsor WWWX but presents an update
there.
- Section 8.4 Rejection of a Submission request: Team must explain reason
for rejection to Submitter.
- Section 9 Process Evolution: The process Document now undergoes a
Recommendation-like process, with the AB acting as a WG.
- The Process Document uses "must", "should", and "may" more
consistently.
11 November 1999 Release
This is the same as the 1 November version with one clarification in
Section 7: once the Director has announced changes to the process to the
Advisory Committee, it may become the operative process rather than waiting
until the end of the appeal period.
1 November 1999 Release
8 June 1999 Release
- Added missing publication date.
- Put Process ERB in appendix
9 May 1999 release
- Added copyright statement.
- 1.3 W3C's Consensus Policy:
Added a statement about unanimity.
- 1.5 W3C's IPR Policy: Invited
experts must declare IPR.
- 2.1.4 Participation
in W3C by individuals: Invited experts must sign release form.
- 2.2 The W3C Team Edited text about
Director and Chair roles.
- 3.1.1 How to Create an
Activity Added paragraph about using Activity Statements to track
Activities.
- 3.2.6 How to Join a Group All
people who join a group must disclose IPR.
- 3.3.1 Working Groups Defined
participation in a group: (a) joined and in good standing or (b) invited
expert.
- 3.3.2 Working Group Consensus and
Voting: Important New section on Working Group
Consensus and Voting.
- Deleted section on W3C Projects. There are no longer Projects, just
Working, Coordination, and Interest groups.
- 5. The W3C Submission
Process: Added clarifications about Submission requests being
different from Recommendation Track.
- 5.1 How to Send a
Submission Request: Submission acknowledgment now between one
and four weeks after validation (to ensure time for Team
review).
- 5.3 Acknowledgment of a
Submission request:
- All Notes resulting from an acknowledged Submission request must
follow W3C document notice and contain link to it.
- Updated statement in Note of acknowledged Submission.
- 6.1 General information
about documents:
- 6.2 Notes:
- Notes may involve W3C resources (e.g., of a requirements
document) but not endorsement by W3C since not reviewed by the
AC.
- Added statement about Notes for requirements docs.
- Changed examples of Note status sections to convey different levels
of commitment and to be based on each other.
- 6.3.1 Working Drafts: Status
information now based on what is said in practice.
- 6.3.2 Working Drafts: Last call
information here, no longer in Working Draft section. Suggested last call
(note: not mandatory) 3-4 weeks.
- 7.1 The Process Document:
When no WG created to change process, the Director appoints an
editor.
- 8.1 Summary of Process
Schedules: New table of common process schedules (not accessible
yet).
- 8.2 Information at the W3C Web
site: Added PUB18, PUB19, and MEM19 references.
- 8.4 Partnerships: Added
ISO/IEC WG2 SC2, but Unicode in table, deleted NIST, renamed VRML as
Web3D.
12 November 1998 release
- An effort has been made to simplify the Process Document by removing
language describing the internal mechanisms used by the Team. That
information has been moved to the W3C Web site to appropriate locations.
The Process Document focuses more on interactions between the AC and the
Team that are visible to the AC.
- 1.5 W3C's Intellectual Property Rights
(IPR) policy : New section on W3C's IPR policy. IPR information has
also been sprinkled throughout the document, to remind Members a key
moments to disclose IPR claims. W3C will make all IPR claims available to
Members. All IPR claims must be sent to
patent-issues@w3.org.
- 1.6 Individual
Participation Criteria (formerly 3.6): Advisory Committee
representatives who nominate individuals for participation in W3C
Activities are responsible for assessing and attesting to the qualities
of participants from their organization.
- 2.1 Members: The section
(formerly 2.1.1) on Member profiles has been integrated here.
- 2.2.1 Director's
decisions: Summarizes the Director's decision process. Stated
explicitly that time lapse between AC review end and Director's decision
not specified in most cases. Also added section on Advisory Committee
appeal, unifying the several instances that were scattered throughout the
document.
- 2.4.4 Advisory Committee
Review: Section summarizing process of review of proposals from
Director.
- 2.5 Advisory Board: New section on
Advisory Board.
- 3.1 Activities: Clearer
description of how an Activity is created. Some information about group
creation moved to 3.2.5 How to Create a Group). Date of first
face-to-face meeting of any proposed groups clarified.
- 3.1.1 How to Create an
Activity: Explained more clearly. Activity statements track the
evolution of an Activity. No need to get review for a new briefing
package when an Activity evolves normally. New Activity must be proposed
if changes diverge greatly from the intent of the initial briefing
package.
- 3.2.5 How to Create a
Group: Cleanup and simplification of the description of how to create
a group. A group is created by the Director who issues a call for
participation to the AC. Charters are not proposed to AC, they are just
approved by the Director. However, the AC may appeal the changes.
- 3.2.6 How to Join a Group:
Cleanup and simplification of the description of how to join a group. A
group Chair cannot reject a participant's nomination, Director can. AC
rep responsible for assuring the qualities of the nominee.
- 4 W3C Events: Creation of
independent section on Events (formerly combined with
Groups/Activities).
- 4.1 Workshops: Section on
Workshop announcements clarified. The Director announces to the Advisory
Committee that a workshop will be held.
- 5 The W3C Submission Process:
Much cleanup of the description of the Submission process. Note that the
only way for a Member to have a Note published is
through the Submission process. There is no "notes@w3.org" for informal
Submission requests. A paragraph has been added to clarify that if
Submission request concerns work of a WG, the Director will request that
taken to WG, otherwise risk of rejection. Also, clarification of language
surrounding Submission process (Submission Request, Submission
package).
- 6 Technical Reports:
Introductory prose now compares notes, working drafts, proposed
recommendations, and recommendations.
- 6.3 The W3C Recommendation Track:
Recommendation track must start with WG working draft.
- 6.3.1 Working Drafts: A last call
period is instituted prior to the Proposed Recommendation phase.
- 7 W3C Process: Creation of
independent section on Process (no significant changes from previous
version).
26 May 1998 release
- 2.1.3: Individuals may join W3C as Affiliate Members.
- 2.1.4: Defined "related Members" and rewrote sections on votes so that
related Members vote as a unit (i.e., they only get one vote).
- 2.3.1: Email notice ok for changes in AC representatives.
- 2.3.3: Clarification about sending more than one representative to an
AC meeting.
- 2.3.4: Advisory Committee voting procedure further clarified. Two
rounds possible (if 5% request a re-vote), although Director has final
say.
- 2.4.2: Section on "master mailing list" edited. Now, explicit mention
of two mailing lists: one for official AC activities (for AC reps) and
one for general information (for Members).
- 3.2.2: Coordination Groups (or Working Group Chair) must ensure that
dependencies of a group on another group are respected. Example given.
Minor wording change to this bullet item and preceding bullet item.
- 3.4.1: Workshop proposals. The term "briefing package" has been
removed. The term "workshop proposal" is used in its place. A workshop
proposal includes a call for participation (also defined).