Name for Proposed Changes under patent review

[fantasai]

Process 2020 provides for an amendment process for RECs:

1. Changes are "proposed" by marking them into the spec so that they can be reviewed / evaluated / tested.
2. At some point a "last call for review of proposed changes" is issued identifying specific proposed changes for review by the AC and the lawyers.
3. Provided the changes are then accepted, the proposed changes are folded inline as in an updated REC.

We don't have a name for the identified changes, which can be a subset of all the proposed changes in a spec. It might be nice to have a name for them, to help us identify them as being the changes under review.

[dwsinger]

Since this is an amendment process, how about Amendment of Recommendation?

The words "draft", "candidate", "proposed", etc. can be used in front of this as needed; but we never publish an amendment per se, we publish an amended rec.

[fantasai]

Not sure I understand your comment. "Proposed Change" is currently a defined term, and when annotated inline, has to be marked as such. https://w3c.github.io/w3process/#proposed-changes

Problem is when some of these "proposed changes" are submitted for patent/AC review, we don't have a distinct name to mark them up with.

The issue with using [ draft | candidate | proposed ] is that we don't actually have three distinct stages, only two: A) WG approves the change, asks for wide review B) WG asks for AC/patent/Director's approval simultaneously so that it can be incorporated into an upcoming REC.

[dwsinger]

My suggestion is "Amendment of Recommendation".

It can have any status keywords in front of it that we like (draft, editor's draft, proposed, revised, …)

[dwsinger]

If we don't want a name for the bundle but only for 'a change that we are asking to be approved' I think perhaps we need to keep the word 'proposed' for the step that asks for approval — it's been proposed to the AC for acceptance.

Perhaps we need to use a pair of adjectives that we can apply to change:

• "candidate change" – the WG has consensus on the change, and is requesting implementation experience and comment;
• "proposed change" – the change has been sent to the AC for approval, and forms part of a PRD.

Inline changes marked as issues/errata and not formally identified as candidate or proposed changes are implicitly draft changes. A formal term is not needed (conceptually, they are something like "draft" changes).

Note that there may be inline issues warning of bugs or intended features that don't even have a draft change.

(I think 6.1.4 needs slight edits as well, but that should be separate).

[dwsinger]

editor is asked to come up with a pull request for this change

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Names for Proposed Changes under Patent Review.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Topic: Names for Proposed Changes under Patent Review
<dsinger_> Moving to #408 (https://github.com//issues/408)
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/408
<tantek> scribenick: tantek
<tantek> fantasai: 408 introduces an amendment process for RECs
<tantek> fantasai: so changes (in the document) can be reviewed, tested, commented on, revised etc., rather than sitting in a pull request, issue or errata document
<tantek> fantasai: and we have a process where say these 5 of the 15 changes are ready and we want to fold them into the REC, then we issue a LC for those things
<tantek> fantasai: and once there is approval from AC, no patent isssues, then we fold that into the spec
<tantek> fantasai: seems like it would be easier to communicate if we had a name for the changes under review rather than all the changes
<dsinger_> q?
<tantek> fantasai: candidate change for the changes in general, and proposed change for the ones that are going for AC review
<dsinger_> q?
<tantek> (some informal back/forth about naming)
<tantek> dsinger_: we don't have precise text edits yet
<dsinger_> q?
<tantek> fantasai: if we agree conceptually we can draft text
<tantek> dsinger_: at some point we might want to edit 6.1.4 errata management
<dsinger_> q?
<tantek> dsinger_: not a can of worms to open right now
<plh> [I still recommend to use P2019 instead of holding for revising RECs nowadays given our timeline. see https://github.com/w3c/geolocation-api/issues/42 ]
<tantek> florian: agree on names for these would be good. these names not grown on my yet. nothing better to suggest
<dsinger_> q?
<tantek> +1 accept concept, figure out names/text later
<tantek> dsinger_: sounds like we are agreed conceptually but not on names
<tantek> dsinger_: ask editor to go back and write a pull request for this change?
<tantek> fantasai: we should accept the names unless someone comes up with something better
<fantasai> s/but not on names/but need wording/
<tantek> dsinger_: the pull request should be atomic
<tantek> dsinger_: hearing silence consensus so the editor is instructed to come up with a pull request for this change, sooner rather than later
<tantek> florian: yes it will be soon
<tantek> dsinger_: this is the only pull request we expect to review in two weeks
<tantek> scribe had audio drop out
<tantek> dsinger_: ... comunity groups ...
<tantek> fantasai: no
<tantek> dsinger_: increasing turnout for AC ....
<fantasai> i/dsinger/florian: Resolve to defer latest two issues?
<tantek> dsinger_: editor are you clear?
<tantek> florian: plural, but yes
<tantek> dsinger_: jeff, what do you want?
<tantek> jeff: AB needs to approve it, maybe thu july 2
<tantek> jeff: CG needs to approve anytime before july 2
<tantek> jeff: then we can send to ballot after AB approval
<chaals> [I would like to define CGs now but doubt we can and am OK with delaying it another year (it's only been a decade). I don't think there is a proposal we should act on in regards to #410 and am not convinced it is a problem we should solve]
<tantek> jeff: AB won't want to send to membership unless patent policy is completed as well
<tantek> wseltzer: still planning for the 30th
<tantek> dsinger_: you think PSIG will approve?
<tantek> wseltzer: sure
<tantek> dsinger_: next meeting 24th. AOB?
<tantek> s/you think PSIG will approve/CG will take silence from PSIG as consent
<tantek> dsinger_: ... finishing 4 min early!
<wseltzer> s/silence from PSIG/silence from PSIG on 403/
<wseltzer> rrsagent, draft minutes
<RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/06/10-w3process-minutes.html wseltzer

[frivoal]

editor is asked to come up with a pull request for this change

The editors have prepared #413. Feedback welcome.