Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update proposals-CG-WG.md #12

Open
wants to merge 16 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Update proposals-CG-WG.md #12

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
16 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
6eab649
Update proposals-CG-WG.md
hlflanagan Nov 26, 2024
dc2c137
Update proposals-CG-WG.md (date format)
hlflanagan Dec 17, 2024
64dc551
Update proposals-CG-WG.md (date format)
hlflanagan Dec 17, 2024
36b00eb
Update proposals-CG-WG.md
hlflanagan Jan 13, 2025
49e1647
Update proposals-CG-WG.md
hlflanagan Jan 13, 2025
4c33265
Update proposals-CG-WG.md
hlflanagan Jan 13, 2025
8cf888a
Update proposals-CG-WG.md
hlflanagan Jan 13, 2025
191f379
Update proposals-CG-WG.md
hlflanagan Jan 13, 2025
908bc26
Update proposals-CG-WG.md
hlflanagan Jan 13, 2025
e2019cc
Update proposals-CG-WG.md
hlflanagan Jan 13, 2025
3691307
Revert "Update proposals-CG-WG.md "
hlflanagan Jan 13, 2025
aceeee6
Revert "Update proposals-CG-WG.md "
hlflanagan Jan 13, 2025
3f12154
Revert "Update proposals-CG-WG.md "
hlflanagan Jan 13, 2025
f623717
Revert "Update proposals-CG-WG.md (date format)"
hlflanagan Jan 13, 2025
1d7b0f2
Revert "Update proposals-CG-WG.md (date format)"
hlflanagan Jan 13, 2025
d972b27
reverting purely editorial changes
hlflanagan Jan 13, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
41 changes: 22 additions & 19 deletions proposals-CG-WG.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@

Author: @samuelgoto
Created: 08/11/2024
Last update: 09/11/2024
Last update: 11/26/2024
Status: under review

This is a proposal to break proposals into 5 stages of maturity, with clear guidelines and requirements to advance them:
Expand All @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ This is a proposal to break proposals into 5 stages of maturity, with clear guid
* [Stage 3](#stage3): **Implementation** of the preferred Proposal
* [Stage 4](#stage4): **Publication** of a Proposed Recommendation

These stages support the W3C process. If there is ever any question between W3C process requirements and how the groups will progress their work, the W3C process has precedent.
These stages support the W3C process and align with the [TC39 process](https://tc39.es/process-document/) and the [WHATWG process](https://whatwg.org/stages). If there is ever any question between W3C process requirements and how the groups will progress their work, the W3C process has precedent.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you revert this change too as it is covered in this other PR? https://github.com/w3c-fedid/Administration/pull/13/files#diff-413347616d7d3063a428e05c5c47d90aa1301ba3dade010736161ffb20774cedR16


# Stage 0: Exploration

Expand All @@ -38,42 +38,45 @@ The purpose of Stage 1 proposals is to explore the Solution Space and pick a pre

# Stage 2: Formalization

The purpose of Stage 2 Proposals is to formally specify the best (and seemingly workable) alternative that was identified in the prior step: handle corner cases, integrate with other parts, reconcile with other proposals, and resolve the concerns identified at the entrance. The Proposal enters Stage 2 with a list of blocking issues to advance to the next stage and exits with all of the issues resolved.
The goal of Stage 2 is to refine the preferred solution into a detailed, cohesive proposal that addresses known issues and integrates feedback from stakeholders. The Proposal enters Stage 2 with a list of blocking issues to advance to the next stage and exits with all of the issues resolved. This stage focuses on preparing the proposal for Working Group review and creating a complete, formal draft.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Complete formal draft of what? I guess the specification of the feature?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, specification of the feature.

Copy link

@elf-pavlik elf-pavlik Mar 4, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

W3C CGs use Draft Report and Final Report terminology. Could draft report make it more clear?
https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/#deliverables
image


* What's needed from champions?
* [ ] An [explainer](https://tag.w3.org/explainers/)
* [ ] Alternatives and trade-offs considered
* [ ] A specific preferred proposal, e.g., code samples, examples, or a spec PRs (if the formalism is needed to understand the proposal)
* [ ] Browser and developer implementation experience (e.g., a prototype, dev trials, origin trials, etc)
* [ ] Confidence of developer demand and fitness for purpose (e.g. a developer that needs this proposal)
* [ ] An [explainer](https://tag.w3.org/explainers/).
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can I suggest that we keep these editorial fixes outside of this PR so that we can focus on the normative changes? For example, I almost dismissed the change below because I assumed that it was just making editorial changes rather than normative.

The editorial changes are perfectly valid, I just think that they may be best done in isolation rather than together with this spec PR.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can you revert the non-editorial changes so that it is easier to review?

* [ ] Documentation of alternatives and trade-offs considered.
* [ ] Optionally, a draft specification text (or detailed examples/code samples if needed for clarity).
* [ ] Early implementation experience, including prototypes or trials.
* [ ] Evidence of stakeholder (e.g. web developers) demand and use-case alignment.

* What's asked of the **Working Group**?
* [ ] Working Group consensus to adopt the proposal as the basis for their work as a [Working Draft](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsWD).
* [ ] Working Group identification of the list of (seemingly resolvable) issues that have to be addressed before [Stage 3](#stage-3).
* [ ] An [Editor's Draft](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#editors-draft) can be used to get PRs merged between [Working Draft](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsWD) revisions.
* [ ] Working Group consensus to adopt the proposal as the basis for their work.
* [ ] A clear list of blocking issues to be addressed before advancing to Stage 3.
* [ ] A completed Working Draft for further iteration.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What does this mean? What does it mean that we ask the Working Group for a Working Draft?

That is, do we expect every different proposal to have separate working drafts?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As a spec editor, I would not enjoy having a separate 'working draft' for every feature. That said, maybe this can say 'pull request' at least for features that are intended to be part of an existing spec and not their own spec (which are probably the vast majority)?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If it's an update, then yes, a PR. If it's a whole new thing, then a doc draft.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Link to Working Draft seemed useful, why was it removed?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ooops.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This seems at odds with the above Optionally, a draft specification text (or detailed examples/code samples if needed for clarity).. A Working Draft is a draft specification with minimal adoption from the WG, no? So how is the draft spec optional if the WD is required?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You're right. Reverting that change.

* [ ] Approval to dedicate the WG's time to Review spec PRs to merge the proposal into the [Working Draft](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsWD).


# Stage 3: Implementation

> NOTE: We don't yet have enough experience as we get towards Stage 3 and 4, so they aren't fully baked yet. It is possible that these
> will change a lot as we learn, including potentially entirely replacing them with references to the W3C Process.
> will change a lot as we learn, including potentially entirely replacing them with references to the W3C Process.

The purpose of Stage 3 Proposals is to increase implementation and deployment confidence in order to produce a [Candidate Recommendation](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsCR).
The purpose of Stage 3 Proposals is to increase implementation and deployment confidence in order to produce a [Candidate Recommendation](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsCR). The spec should be considered finished, pending editorial nit review. However, since multiple implementations are expected to be produced during this stage, it is possible there will be further changes to normative content based on feedback from those implementors.

* What's needed from champions?
* [ ] Proposal fully merged into the [Working Draft](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsWD)
* [ ] Web Platform Tests
* [ ] Further implementation experience
* [ ] Proposal fully merged into the [Working Draft](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsWD).
* [ ] Web Platform Tests are available.
* [ ] At least two independent implementers and no unresolved objections (where resolution may include an agreement not to address the issue).
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This requirement seems a bit off compared with the previous text since multiple implementations are expected to be produced during this stage. So are multiple implementors needed to reach stage 3 or could they possibly occur during stage 3? Note that in WHATWG it is two implementers supporting which is different from having actually implemented. https://whatwg.org/stages#stage3

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agreed. Stage 3 is ready for implementation; so rephrasing to supporting makes sense.

* What's asked of the **Working Group**?
* [ ] Working Group consensus that the [Working Draft](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsWD) sufficiently resolves all of the issues raised at [Stage 2](#stage-2)
* [ ] Working Group consensus to publish the [Working Draft](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsWD) as the Working Group's [Candidate Recommendation](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsCR)

# Stage 4: Publication

The purpose of Stage 4 Proposals is to produce a [W3C Recommendation](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsW3C).
The purpose of Stage 4 Proposals is to produce a [W3C Recommendation](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsW3C). At this stage, the spec is merged and has finished editor review. This editor review could be lengthy, especially if the feature is large and/or the contributor is new to W3C process, but it will usually be short.

* What's needed from champions?
* [ ] Sufficient [implementation experience](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#implementation-experience)
* [ ] Documented [implementation experience](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#implementation-experience) across multiple environments.
* What's asked of the **Working Group**?
* [ ] Working Group consensus that the [Candidate Recommendation](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsCR)'s implementation experience is complete and
* [ ] Working Group consensus that the [Candidate Recommendation](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsCR)'s implementation experience is complete
* [ ] Working Group consensus to publish it as a [Proposed Recommendation](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsPR)

# Prior Art
Expand Down