Mechanism to identify governing process (part of Process 2014 adoption)

[ianbjacobs]

Hi Esteemed Respec colleagues,

We are poised to adopt a new Rec Track process. After two years, all groups will operate under the new Rec Track process. Until then, groups may choose one or the other, which means some specs will be governed by one process, and some by another.

With the Systems Team we have decided to add a new requirement that each new publication after the process launch date will include a paragraph identifying the governing process. The pubrules checker will look for this paragraph.

I would like respec to enable editors to indicate the governing process for Rec Track documents. (This is not pertinent for CG/BG reports.)

The mechanism should be extensible so that when there are future Rec Track revisions, the author can identify them as well.

Here's how I was thinking it would work:

• For any TR doc published before the process launch date, the mechanism has no effect.
• For any TR doc published after the process launch date, the mechanism includes a paragraph toward the end of the status section that identifies the governing process. Over time, what will change is the URI and title of that document.
• The user can only choose from among a set process document references; other values trigger an error.

Here is the text we have programmed the pubrules checker to look for:

(1) For the 14 October 2005 W3C Process Document:

      <p>This document is governed by the  <a id="w3c_process_revision" href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/">14 October 2005 W3C Process Document</a>.</p>

(2) For the new process document, I don't have the final title/URI. For the time being I am using the proposed document's title and URI:

      <p>This document is governed by the <a id="w3c_process_revision" href="http://www.w3.org/2014/05/Process-20140506/">6 May 2014 W3C Process Document</a>.</p>

We will need to update that information once the new process document has been finalized.

Let me know if you have any questions,

Ian

[marcoscaceres]

On Wednesday, July 9, 2014 at 9:23 AM, ianbjacobs wrote:

Let me know if you have any questions,

Is there any reason why a spec would want to remain in the old process instead of transitioning to the new one?
And, related, can an "old" spec transition from the old process to the new one?

[ianbjacobs]

On Jul 9, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Marcos Caceres notifications@github.com wrote:

On Wednesday, July 9, 2014 at 9:23 AM, ianbjacobs wrote:

Let me know if you have any questions,

Is there any reason why a spec would want to remain in the old process instead of transitioning to the new one?

There have been discussions with some chairs who prefer, at least for current work, to proceed without having to change process. So a 2-year transition process is envisioned to accommodate the chairs of those gropus.

And, related, can an "old" spec transition from the old process to the new one?

Yes, though it does not make much sense to do so for specs that are already late in the (old) process. We have details about
the transition expectations that will be part of the public announcements (forthcoming) of the new process.

Ian

Ian Jacobs ij@w3.org http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260 9447

[marcoscaceres]

Thanks for the clarifications!

[ianbjacobs]

Updates:

• We will start allowing publications under the new process starting 2 September 2014.
• The URI for the new Process will be http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/
  Ian

[darobin]

Ok, you can now say processVersion: 2005|2014 in your configuration and it will include the version. It defaults to the more recent since I expect new documents will be using that for the most part.

[ianbjacobs]

Thanks Robin!

Could you give me a test spec that I could use to test the checker? I'm not a respec user so I don't have a source handy.

Ian

On Aug 8, 2014, at 6:54 AM, Robin Berjon notifications@github.com wrote:

Ok, you can now say processVersion: 2005|2014 in your configuration and it will include the version. It defaults to the more recent since I expect new documents will be using that for the most part.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

Ian Jacobs ij@w3.org http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 718 260 9447

[marcoscaceres]

I don't know if you've pushed this yet, @darobin ... but @ianbjacobs ... in theory, the following two links should work:

http://w3c.github.io/manifest/?processVersion=2014
http://w3c.github.io/manifest/?processVersion=2005

[darobin]

Neither of those will work on the checker by themselves as they're generated, but they'll work with the snapshot.

[ianbjacobs]

Hi Robin,

Respec is adding abbr around W3C. Is there a way to stop it from do that in this text?

I don't think there's any harm in having it, it's just that I didn't request it and so the tooling from my end is not expecting it.

If you think there's a high value to having it there, or there's a high cost to removing it, please let me know. Thanks!

Ian