w3process
w3process copied to clipboard
w3c
Clarify integration (and potential conflicts) between the Process and its normative references
This addresses the part of @jwrosewell's formal objection on precedence and potential conflicts between the Process and its normative references.
@jwrosewell, can you review and let us know whether this change addresses your comment? (See https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/571 for the Pull Request that addresses the rest of your comment)
Minor, but I would prefer "takes precedence" to "overrides", and we should have a statement that these policies are written with the intent that there be no conflict, but in the event that one exists, the MA takes precedence over etc.
I question whether the patent policy should have precedence over the process.
When we eliminated "Last Call" from the process (circa 2014?), we did not want to change the PP. So in the process, we defined CR to be Last Call from the point of view of the PP. It is not clear that this would have worked if the PP had precedence.
Similarly, there could be a future time when we need to make a change. Since we are generally reluctant to change the PP, we might choose to make such changes in the process. But again, if the PP has precedence, it is not obvious to me that it would work.
When we eliminated "Last Call" from the process (circa 2014?), we did not want to change the PP. So in the process, we defined CR to be Last Call from the point of view of the PP. It is not clear that this would have worked if the PP had precedence.
I do not believe this to be a case of conflict between the Patent Policy and the Process. The Patent Policy depended on the term "Last Call", and the process changed which phase of the document's evolution this corresponds to.
Both documents are designed to work together, and depend on each other's terminology to make sense. Through these dependencies, we can evolve them as we did for Last Call. But if the Process accidentally stated something incorrect about the patent policy, it should not change the meaning of the patent policy.
Minor, but I would prefer "takes precedence" to "overrides"
No objection, but I am unsure what nuance this difference would imply.
and we should have a statement that these policies are written with the intent that there be no conflict, but in the event that one exists, the MA takes precedence over etc.
Sure. Updated the text accordingly.
When we eliminated "Last Call" from the process (circa 2014?), we did not want to change the PP. So in the process, we defined CR to be Last Call from the point of view of the PP. It is not clear that this would have worked if the PP had precedence.
I do not believe this to be a case of conflict between the Patent Policy and the Process. The Patent Policy depended on the term "Last Call", and the process changed which phase of the document's evolution this corresponds to. I would not say that I know you are wrong, my only point was that "it is not clear to me". If PSIG signs off that there is no ambiguity, then I am OK with the past example about Last Call.
But I also worry about future changes as I said above. Given that we never want to change the PP, but we change the Process every year, there could be slight changes that we need to make where it would be convenient to make them in the Process - but couldn't if it conflicts with the PP.
I'm also interested in understanding why it is important for the PP to have precedence over the Process. If the documents work together, there wouldn't be any conflict.
I'm also interested in understanding why it is important for the PP to have precedence over the Process. If the documents work together, there wouldn't be any conflict.
That's not what we are talking about. We hope, intend, and believe that we are perfect and there are and will never be conflict. This text deals with situations where we are wrong, and made a mistake.
I am pretty sure that a document that puts legal obligations on members takes precedence over something that puts procedural requirements on them, and that PSIG would agree.
I am pretty sure that a document that puts legal obligations on members takes precedence over something that puts procedural requirements on them, and that PSIG would agree.
Terrific!! @wseltzer , can we get PSIG to comment on this thread?
Minor, but I would prefer "takes precedence" to "overrides"
No objection, but I am unsure what nuance this difference would imply.
It's more common legal language, so more likely to be understood as "in the event of conflict, look to the one with precedence as controlling."
@dwsinger @wseltzer updated the pull request to use "takes precedence" rather than "overrides"
Thank you. The revision with "precedence" makes sense.
I'm unclear regarding the interpretation of the following sentence.
"The Process Document, Patent Policy, and CEPC have been designed to allow them to evolve independently."
My concern is knowing which one applies when interpreting the W3C Membership Agreement, Appendix 1, and these interrelated dependent documents. It seems this is being progressed in PR 571 and might be removed from this PR?
As per https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/574#issuecomment-925006702 I think this change is misplaced and belongs in the referencing document, i.e. the Member Agreement, not the Process.
@nigelmegitt I think this could go in either the Member Agreement or the Process, and it's a lot easier to put it in the Process, so I think it's fine here.
@nigelmegitt I think this could go in either the Member Agreement or the Process, and it's a lot easier to put it in the Process, so I think it's fine here.
It maybe could, but it would create somewhat of a mess. In the end, I disagree, because https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/572/files#diff-5e793325cd2bfc452e268a4aa2f02b4024dd9584bd1db3c2595f61f1ecf7b985R131 :
the Member Agreement takes precedence over the Patent Policy,
is stating the precedence of two other documents relative to each other, both of which are asserted to have higher precedence than the Process! The only place that statement should go is in the Member Agreement.
This is partly about "cleanliness" but also about correct allocation and separation of concerns.
Consider if there were somehow a misalignment in statements of precedence in each of the different documents: it must be unambiguously derivable which document actually has precedence. The best way to do that is to state the precedence in the referencing document, not either a) some other document or b) the referenced document.
As stated in https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/574#issuecomment-1802211225:
action florian to review PR 572 to see if there is any editorial bit to salvage before closing
This PR had 4 commits. The first one and last one being editorial, and worth salvaging, but that has already been done a while back, with commit 16f6156c3afb48f1cf17caed6b81644a40727b42, on the main branch since February 2023.
The rest was substantive, but is being abandoned, as per PSIG's recommendation documented in #574. Closing