1. Introduction
Most
W3C
work
revolves
around
the
standardization
of
Web
technologies.
To
accomplish
this
work,
W3C
follows
processes
that
promote
the
development
of
high-quality
standards
based
on
the
consensus
of
the
Membership,
Team,
and
public.
W3C
processes
promote
fairness,
responsiveness,
and
progress:
all
facets
of
the
W3C
mission.
This
document
describes
the
processes
W3C
follows
in
pursuit
of
its
mission.
The W3C Process promotes the goals of quality and fairness in technical decisions by encouraging consensus , soliciting reviews (by both Members and public), incorporating implementation and interoperability experience, and requiring Membership-wide approval as part of the technical report development process . Participants in W3C include representatives of its Members and the Team , as well as Invited Experts who can bring additional expertise or represent additional stakeholders. Team representatives both contribute to the technical work and help ensure the group’s proper integration with the rest of W3C.
W3C’s technical standards, called W3C Recommendations , are developed by its Working Groups ; W3C also has other types of publications, all described in § 6 W3C Technical Report Development Process . W3C has various types of groups; this document describes the formation and policies of its chartered Working Groups and Interest Groups , see § 3 General Policies for W3C Groups and § 5 Working Groups and Interest Groups . W3C also operates Community and Business Groups, which are separately described in their own process document [BG-CG] .
In addition, several groups are formally established by the Consortium: the W3C Advisory Committee , which has a representative from each Member, and two oversight groups elected by its membership: the Advisory Board (AB) , which helps resolve Consortium-wide non-technical issues and manages the evolution of the W3C process ; and the Technical Architecture Group (TAG) , which helps resolve Consortium-wide technical issues.
Here
is
a
general
overview
of
how
W3C
standardizes
a
Web
technology.
In
many
cases,
the
goal
initiates
standardization
of
this
work
is
a
W3C
Recommendation
—
a
Web
standard.
technology:
-
People
generate
interest
in
a
particular
topic.
For
instance,
Members
express
interest
by
developing
proposals
in
Community
Groups
or
proposing
ideas
in
the form ofMember Submissions, and. Also, the Team monitors work inside and outside of W3C for signs ofinterest. Also, W3C is likely tointerest, and helps organizeaWorkshopWorkshops to bring people together to discuss topics that interest the W3C community. -
When
there
is
enough
interest
in a topic (e.g., after a successful Workshop and/or discussion onand anAdvisory Committee mailing list ),engaged community, theDirector announcesTeam works with thedevelopment of a proposal for one or more newMembership to draft proposed Interest Group or Working Group charters, depending on the breadth of the topic of interest.. W3C Members review the proposedcharters. Whencharters, and when there is support within W3C for investing resources in the topic of interest, theDirectorW3C approves thegroup(s)group(s), and they begin their work.There are three types of Working Group participants: Member representatives , Invited Experts , and Team representatives . Team representatives both contribute to the technical work and help ensure the group’s proper integration with the rest of W3C. The Working Group charter sets expectations about each group’s deliverables (e.g., technical reports , test suites, and tutorials). Working Groups generally create specifications and guidelines that undergo cycles of revision and review as they advance to W3C Recommendation status. The W3C process for producing these technical reports includes significant review by the Members and public, and requirements that the Working Group be able to show implementation and interoperability experience. At the end of the process, the Advisory Committee reviews the mature technical report, and if there is support, W3C publishes it as a Recommendation .
The
Process
Document
promotes
the
goals
of
quality
and
fairness
in
technical
decisions
by
encouraging
consensus
,
requiring
reviews
(by
both
Members
and
public)
as
part
of
the
technical
report
development
process
,
and
through
an
Advisory
Committee
Appeal
process
.
The
other
Further
sections
of
the
this
Process
Document:
set
forth
policies
Document
deal
with
topics
including
liaisons
(
§ 9
Liaisons
for
participation
in
W3C
groups,
establish
two
permanent
groups
within
W3C:
the
Technical
Architecture
Group
(TAG)
,
to
help
resolve
Consortium-wide
technical
issues;
and
the
Advisory
Board
(AB)
,
to
help
resolve
Consortium-wide
non-technical
issues,
),
confidentiality
(
§ 4
Dissemination
Policies
),
and
to
manage
the
evolution
of
the
W3C
process
,
formal
decisions
and
describe
other
interactions
between
the
Members
(as
represented
by
the
W3C
appeals
(
§ 7
Advisory
Committee
),
the
Team,
and
the
general
public.
The
W3C
also
operates
Community
Reviews,
Appeals,
and
Business
Groups,
which
are
separately
described
in
their
own
process
document
Votes
[BG-CG]
.
).
2. Members, Advisory Committee, Team, Advisory Board, Technical Architecture Group
W3C’s mission is to lead the Web to its full potential. W3C Member organizations provide resources to this end, and the W3C Team provides the technical leadership and organization to coordinate the effort.
2.1. Members
W3C Members are primarily represented in W3C processes as follows:
-
The
Advisory
Committee
is
composed
of
one
representative
from
each
Member
organization
(refer
to
the
Member-only
list
of
current
Advisory
Committee
representatives
.
[CURRENT-AC]
)
The
Advisory
Committee:
- reviews plans for W3C at each Advisory Committee meeting ;
-
reviews
formal
proposals
from
the
W3C Director:W3C: Charter Proposals , Proposed Recommendations , and Proposed Process Documents . - elects the Advisory Board participants other than the Advisory Board Chair.
- elects a majority (6) of the participants on the Technical Architecture Group .
Advisory Committee representatives may initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal in some cases described in this document.
- Representatives of Member organizations participate in Working Groups and Interest Groups and author and review technical reports .
W3C membership is open to all entities, as described in “ How to Join W3C ” [JOIN] ; (refer to the public list of current W3C Members [MEMBER-LIST] ). Organizations subscribe according to the Membership Agreement [MEMBER-AGREEMENT] . The Team must ensure that Member participation agreements remain Team-only and that no Member receives preferential treatment within W3C.
While W3C does not have a class of membership tailored to individuals, individuals may join W3C. Restrictions pertaining to related Members apply when the individual also represents another W3C Member.
2.1.1. Rights of Members
Each Member organization enjoys the following rights and benefits:
- A seat on the Advisory Committee ;
- Access to Member-only information;
- The Member Submission process;
- Use of the W3C Member logo on promotional material and to publicize the Member’s participation in W3C. For more information, please refer to the Member logo usage policy described in the New Member Orientation [INTRO] .
Furthermore, subject to further restrictions included in the Member Agreement, representatives of Member organizations participate in W3C as follows:
- In Working Groups and Interest Groups .
- In Workshops and Symposia ;
- On the Team, as W3C Fellows .
The
rights
and
benefits
of
W3C
membership
[MEMBER-AGREEMENT]
are
contingent
upon
conformance
to
the
processes
described
in
this
document.
The
vast
majority
of
W3C
Members
faithfully
follow
the
spirit
as
well
as
the
letter
of
these
processes.
When
serious
and/or
repeated
violations
do
occur,
and
repeated
attempts
to
address
these
violations
have
not
resolved
the
situation,
the
Director
may
take
disciplinary
action.
Arbitration
Disciplinary
action
for
anyone
participating
in
the
case
of
further
disagreement
W3C
activities
is
governed
by
paragraph
19
of
the
Membership
Agreement
[MEMBER-AGREEMENT]
.
Refer
to
the
Guidelines
for
Disciplinary
Action
[DISCIPLINARY-GL]
described
in
§ 3.1.1
Expectations
and
Discipline
.
2.1.2. Member Consortia and Related Members
2.1.2.1. Membership Consortia
A “ Member Consortium ” means a consortium, user society, or association of two or more individuals, companies, organizations or governments, or any combination of these entities which has the purpose of participating in a common activity or pooling resources to achieve a common goal other than participation in, or achieving certain goals in, W3C. A joint-stock corporation or similar entity is not a Member Consortium merely because it has shareholders or stockholders. If it is not clear whether a prospective Member qualifies as a Member Consortium , the Director may reasonably make the determination. For a Member Consortium , the rights and privileges of W3C Membership described in the W3C Process Document extend to the Member Consortium 's paid staff and Advisory Committee representative.
Member Consortia may also designate up to four (or more at the Team’s discretion) individuals who, though not employed by the organization, may exercise the rights of Member representatives .
For Member Consortia that have individual people as members, these individuals must disclose their employment affiliation when participating in W3C work. Provisions for related Members apply. Furthermore, these individuals must represent the broad interests of the W3C Member organization and not the particular interests of their employers.
For Member Consortia that have organizations as Members, all such designated representatives must be an official representative of the Member organization (e.g. a Committee or Task Force Chairperson) and must disclose their employment affiliation when participating in W3C work. Provisions for related Members apply. Furthermore, these individuals must represent the broad interests of the W3C Member organization and not the particular interests of their employers.
For all representatives of a Member Consortium, IPR commitments are made on behalf of the Member Consortium, unless a further IPR commitment is made by the individuals' employers.
2.1.2.2. Related Members
In the interest of ensuring the integrity of the consensus process, Member involvement in some of the processes in this document is affected by related Member status. As used herein, two Members are related if:
- Either Member is a subsidiary of the other, or
- Both Members are subsidiaries of a common entity, or
- The Members have an employment contract or consulting contract that affects W3C participation.
A subsidiary is an organization of which effective control and/or majority ownership rests with another, single organization.
Related Members must disclose these relationships according to the mechanisms described in the New Member Orientation [INTRO] .
2.1.3. Advisory Committee (AC)
When an organization joins W3C (see “ How to Join W3C ” [JOIN] ), it must name its Advisory Committee representative as part of the Membership Agreement. The New Member Orientation [INTRO] explains how to subscribe or unsubscribe to Advisory Committee mailing lists, provides information about Advisory Committee Meetings , explains how to name a new Advisory Committee representative , and more. Advisory Committee representatives must follow the conflict of interest policy by disclosing information according to the mechanisms described in the New Member Orientation. See also the additional roles of Advisory Committee representatives described in the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] .
The AC representative may delegate any of their rights and responsibilities to an alternate (except the ability to designate an alternate).
Additional information for Members is available at the Member Web site [MEMBER-HP] .
2.1.3.1. Advisory Committee Mailing Lists
The Team must provide two mailing lists for use by the Advisory Committee :
- One for official announcements (e.g., those required by this document) from the Team to the Advisory Committee . This list is read-only for Advisory Committee representatives.
- One for discussion among Advisory Committee representatives . Though this list is primarily for Advisory Committee representatives, the Team must monitor discussion and should participate in discussion when appropriate. Ongoing detailed discussions should be moved to other appropriate lists (new or existing, such as a mailing list created for a Workshop ).
An Advisory Committee representative may request that additional individuals from their organization be subscribed to these lists. Failure to contain distribution internally may result in suspension of additional email addresses, at the discretion of the Team.
2.1.3.2. Advisory Committee Meetings
The Team organizes a face-to-face meeting for the Advisory Committee twice a year . The Team appoints the Chair of these meetings (generally the CEO). At each Advisory Committee meeting, the Team should provide an update to the Advisory Committee about:
- Resources
-
- The number of W3C Members at each level.
- An overview of the financial status of W3C.
- Allocations
-
- The allocation of the annual budget, including size of the Team and their approximate deployment.
- A list of all activities (including but not limited to Working and Interest Groups) and brief status statement about each, in particular those started or terminated since the previous Advisory Committee meeting.
- The allocation of resources to pursuing liaisons with other organizations.
Each Member organization should send one representative to each Advisory Committee Meeting. In exceptional circumstances (e.g., during a period of transition between representatives from an organization), the meeting Chair may allow a Member organization to send two representatives to a meeting.
The Team must announce the date and location of each Advisory Committee meeting no later than at the end of the previous meeting; one year’s notice is preferred. The Team must announce the region of each Advisory Committee meeting at least one year in advance.
More information about Advisory Committee meetings [AC-MEETING] is available at the Member Web site.
2.2. The W3C Team
The
Team
consists
of
the
Director,
CEO,
CEO
,
W3C
paid
staff,
unpaid
interns,
and
W3C
Fellows.
W3C
Fellows
are
Member
employees
working
as
part
of
the
Team;
see
the
W3C
Fellows
Program
[FELLOWS]
.
The
Team
provides
technical
leadership
about
Web
technologies,
organizes
and
manages
W3C
activities
to
reach
goals
within
practical
constraints
(such
as
resources
available),
and
communicates
with
the
Members
and
the
public
about
the
Web
and
W3C
technologies.
The Director and CEO may delegate responsibility (generally to other individuals in the Team) for any of their roles described in this document, except participation in the TAG .
Team Decisions derive from the Director and CEO 's authority, even when they are carried out by other members of the Team .
The Director is the lead technical architect at W3C, whose responsibilities are identified throughout this document in relevant places. Some key ones include: assessing consensus within W3C for architectural choices, publication of technical reports , and chartering new Groups; appointing group Chairs , adjudicating as "tie-breaker" for Group decision appeals , and deciding on the outcome of formal objections; the Director is generally Chair of the TAG .
Team administrative information such as Team salaries, detailed budgeting, and other business decisions are Team-only , subject to oversight by the Host institutions .
Note: W3C is not currently incorporated. For legal contracts, W3C is represented by four “Host” institutions : Beihang University, the European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics ( ERCIM ), Keio University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ( MIT ). Within W3C, the Host institutions are governed by hosting agreements; the Hosts themselves are not W3C Members.
2.3. Advisory Board (AB)
Created
in
March
1998,
the
The
Advisory
Board
provides
ongoing
guidance
to
the
Team
on
issues
of
strategy,
management,
legal
matters,
process,
and
conflict
resolution.
The
Advisory
Board
also
serves
the
Members
by
tracking
issues
raised
between
Advisory
Committee
meetings,
soliciting
Member
comments
on
such
issues,
and
proposing
actions
to
resolve
these
issues.
The
Advisory
Board
manages
the
evolution
of
the
Process
Document
.
The
Advisory
Board
hears
a
Submission
Appeal
when
a
Member
Submission
is
rejected
for
reasons
unrelated
to
Web
architecture;
see
also
the
TAG
.
The Advisory Board is not a board of directors and has no decision-making authority within W3C; its role is strictly advisory.
The Team must make available a mailing list, confidential to the Advisory Board and Team, for the Advisory Board to use for its communication.
The Advisory Board should send a summary of each of its meetings to the Advisory Committee and other group Chairs. The Advisory Board should also report on its activities at each Advisory Committee meeting .
Details about the Advisory Board (e.g., the list of Advisory Board participants, mailing list information, and summaries of Advisory Board meetings) are available at the Advisory Board home page [AB-HP] .
2.3.1. Advisory Board Participation
The
Advisory
Board
consists
of
nine
to
eleven
elected
participants
and
a
Chair.
The
one
Chair
(who
may
be
one
of
the
elected
participants).
With
the
input
of
the
AB
,
the
Team
appoints
the
Chair
Chair,
who
should
choose
a
co-chair
among
the
elected
participants.
The
Chair(s)
are
subject
to
ratification
by
secret
ballot
by
two
thirds
of
the
Advisory
Board
,
who
is
generally
AB
upon
appointment
and
at
the
CEO.
start
of
each
AB
term.
The
team
also
appoints
a
Team
Contact
for
the
AB
,
as
described
in
§ 5.1
Requirements
for
All
Working
and
Interest
Groups
.
The
CEO
and
Team
Contact
have
a
standing
invitation
to
all
regular
Advisory
Board
sessions.
The
remaining
nine
to
eleven
Advisory
Board
participants
are
elected
by
the
W3C
Advisory
Committee
following
the
AB/TAG
nomination
and
election
process
.
With
the
exception
of
the
Chair,
the
The
terms
of
all
elected
Advisory
Board
participants
are
for
two
years
.
Terms
are
staggered
so
that
each
year,
either
five
or
six
terms
expire.
If
an
individual
is
elected
to
fill
an
incomplete
term,
that
individual’s
term
ends
at
the
normal
expiration
date
of
that
term.
Regular
Advisory
Board
terms
begin
on
1
July
and
end
on
30
June.
2.4. Technical Architecture Group (TAG)
Created
in
February
2001,
the
The
mission
of
the
TAG
is
stewardship
of
the
Web
architecture.
There
are
three
aspects
to
this
mission:
- to document and build consensus around principles of Web architecture and to interpret and clarify these principles when necessary;
- to resolve issues involving general Web architecture brought to the TAG;
- to help coordinate cross-technology architecture developments inside and outside W3C.
The TAG hears a Submission Appeal when a Member Submission is rejected for reasons related to Web architecture; see also the Advisory Board .
The TAG 's scope is limited to technical issues about Web architecture. The TAG should not consider administrative, process, or organizational policy issues of W3C, which are generally addressed by the W3C Advisory Committee, Advisory Board, and Team. Please refer to the TAG charter [TAG-CHARTER] for more information about the background and scope of the TAG, and the expected qualifications of TAG participants.
The Team must make available two mailing lists for the TAG:
- a public discussion (not just input) list for issues of Web architecture. The TAG will conduct its public business on this list.
- a Member-only list for discussions within the TAG and for requests to the TAG that, for whatever reason, cannot be made on the public list.
The TAG may also request the creation of additional topic-specific, public mailing lists. For some TAG discussions (e.g., a Submission Appeal ), the TAG may use a list that will be Member-only .
The TAG should send a summary of each of its meetings to the Advisory Committee and other group Chairs. The TAG should also report on its activities at each Advisory Committee meeting .
When the TAG votes to resolve an issue, each TAG participant (whether appointed, elected, or the Chair) has one vote; see also the section on voting in the TAG charter [TAG-CHARTER] and the general section on votes in this Process Document.
Details about the TAG (e.g., the list of TAG participants, mailing list information, and summaries of TAG meetings) are available at the TAG home page [TAG-HP] .
2.4.1. Technical Architecture Group Participation
The TAG consists of:
- Tim Berners-Lee, who is a life member;
- The Director , sitting ex officio ;
- Three participants appointed by the Director ;
- Six participants elected by the Advisory Committee following the AB/TAG nomination and election process .
The Team appoints the Chair of the TAG, who must be one of the participants. The team also appoints a Team Contact [TEAM-CONTACT] for the TAG, as described in § 5.1 Requirements for All Working and Interest Groups .
The terms of elected and Director-appointed TAG participants are for two years . Terms are staggered so that each year three elected terms, and either one or two appointed terms expire. If an individual is appointed or elected to fill an incomplete term, that individual’s term ends at the normal expiration date of that term. Regular TAG terms begin on 1 February and end on 31 January.
The Director may announce the appointed participants after the results for the Advisory Committee election of participants have been announced.
2.5. Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Participation
Advisory Board and TAG participants have a special role within W3C: they are elected by the Membership and appointed by the Director with the expectation that they will use their best judgment to find the best solutions for the Web, not just for any particular network, technology, vendor, or user. Advisory Board and TAG participants are expected to participate regularly and fully. Advisory Board and TAG participants should attend Advisory Committee meetings .
Individuals elected or appointed to the Advisory Board or TAG act in their personal capacity, to serve the needs of the W3C membership as a whole, and the Web community. Whether they are Member representatives or Invited Experts, their activities in those roles are separate and distinct from their activities on the Advisory Board or TAG.
An individual participates on the Advisory Board or TAG from the moment the individual’s term begins until the seat is vacated (e.g. because the term ends). Although Advisory Board and TAG participants do not advocate for the commercial interests of their employers, their participation does carry the responsibilities associated with Member representation, Invited Expert status, or Team representation (as described in the section on the AB/TAG nomination and election process ).
Participation in the TAG or AB is afforded to the specific individuals elected or appointed to those positions, and a participant’s seat must not be delegated to any other person.
2.5.1. Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Participation Constraints
Given the few seats available on the Advisory Board and the TAG , and in order to ensure that the diversity of W3C Members is represented:
- Two participants with the same primary affiliation per § 2.5.2 Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Elections must not both occupy elected seats on the TAG except when this is caused by a change of affiliation of an existing participant. At the completion of the next regularly scheduled election for the TAG, the organization must have returned to having at most one seat.
- Two participants with the same primary affiliation per § 2.5.2 Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Elections must not both occupy elected seats on the AB. If, for whatever reason, these constraints are not satisfied (e.g., because an AB participant changes jobs), one participant must cease AB participation until the situation has been resolved. If after 30 days the situation has not been resolved, the Chair will apply the verifiable random selection procedure described below to choose one person for continued participation and declare the other seat(s) vacant.
- An individual must not participate on both the TAG and the AB.
2.5.2. Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Elections
The
Advisory
Board
and
a
portion
of
the
Technical
Architecture
Group
are
elected
by
the
Advisory
Committee
,
using
a
Single
Transferable
Vote
system.
An
election
begins
when
the
Team
sends
a
Call
for
Nominations
to
the
Advisory
Committee.
Any
Call
for
Nominations
specifies
the
minimum
and
maximum
number
of
available
seats,
the
deadline
for
nominations,
details
about
the
specific
vote
tabulation
system
selected
by
the
Team
for
the
election,
and
operational
information
such
as
how
to
nominate
a
candidate.
The
Team
may
modify
the
tabulation
system
after
the
Call
for
Nominations
but
must
stabilize
it
no
later
than
the
Call
for
Votes.
The
Director
Team
should
announce
appointments
no
later
than
the
start
of
a
nomination
period
as
part
of
the
Call
for
Nominations.
In the case of regularly scheduled elections of the TAG , the minimum and maximum number of available seats are the same: the 3 seats of the terms expiring that year, plus the number of other seats that are vacant or will be vacant by the time the newly elected members take their seats.
In the case of regularly scheduled elections of the AB , the minimum and maximum number of available seats differ: The maximum number is the 5 or 6 seats of the terms expiring that year, plus the number of other seats that are vacant or will be vacant by the time the newly elected members take their seats; the minimum number is such that when added to the occupied seats from the prior year, the minimum size of the AB (9) is reached.
Each Member (or group of related Members ) may nominate one individual. A nomination must be made with the consent of the nominee. In order for an individual to be nominated as a Member representative, the individual must qualify for Member representation and the Member’s Advisory Committee representative must include in the nomination the (same) information required for a Member representative in a Working Group . In order for an individual to be nominated as an Invited Expert, the individual must provide the (same) information required for an Invited Expert in a Working Group and the nominating Advisory Committee representative must include that information in the nomination. In order for an individual to be nominated as a Team representative, the nominating Advisory Committee representative must first secure approval from Team management. A nominee is not required to be an employee of a Member organization, and may be a W3C Fellow . The nomination form must ask for the nominee’s primary affiliation , and this will be reported on the ballot. For most nominees, the primary affiliation is their employer and will match their affiliation in the W3C database. For contractors and invited experts, this will normally be their contracting company or their invited expert status; in some cases (e.g. where a consultant is consulting for only one organization) this may be the organization for whom the nominee is consulting. A change of affiliation is defined such that this field would carry a different answer if the nominee were to be re-nominated (therefore, terminating employment, or accepting new employment, are changes of affiliation). (Other formal relationships such as other contracts should be disclosed as potential conflicts of interest.) Each nomination should include a few informative paragraphs about the nominee.
If, after the deadline for nominations, the number of nominees is:
-
Greater
than
or
equal
to
the
minimum
number
of
available
seats
and
less
than
or
equal
to
the
maximum
number
of
available
seats,
those
nominees
are
thereby
elected.
This
situation
constitutes
a
tie
for
the
purpose
of
assigning
shortincomplete terms . Furthermore, if the number is less than the maximum number of available seats, the longest terms are filled first. - Less than the minimum number of available seats, Calls for Nominations are issued until a sufficient number of people have been nominated. Those already nominated do not need to be renominated after a renewed call.
- Greater than the maximum number of available seats, the Team issues a Call for Votes that includes the names of all candidates, the (maximum) number of available seats, the deadline for votes, details about the vote tabulation system selected by the Team for the election, and operational information.
When there is a vote, each Member (or group of related Members ) may submit one ballot that ranks candidates in the Member’s preferred order. Once the deadline for votes has passed, the Team announces the results to the Advisory Committee . In case of a tie the verifiable random selection procedure described below will be used to fill the available seats.
The
shortest
incomplete
term
is
assigned
to
the
elected
candidate
ranked
lowest
by
the
tabulation
of
votes,
the
next
shortest
term
to
the
next-lowest
ranked
elected
candidate,
and
so
on.
In
the
case
of
a
tie
among
those
eligible
for
a
short
incomplete
term,
the
verifiable
random
selection
procedure
described
below
will
be
used
to
assign
the
short
incomplete
term.
Refer to How to Organize an Advisory Board or TAG election [ELECTION-HOWTO] for more details.
2.5.2.1. Verifiable Random Selection Procedure
When
it
is
necessary
to
use
a
verifiable
random
selection
process
(e.g.,
in
an
AB
or
TAG
election,
to
“draw
straws”
in
case
of
a
tie
or
to
fill
a
short
incomplete
term),
W3C
uses
the
random
and
verifiable
procedure
defined
in
RFC
3797
[RFC3797]
.
The
procedure
orders
an
input
list
of
names
(listed
in
alphabetical
order
by
family
name
unless
otherwise
specified)
into
a
“result
order”.
W3C applies this procedure as follows:
- When N people have tied for M (less than N) seats. In this case, only the names of the N individuals who tied are provided as input to the procedure. The M seats are assigned in result order.
-
After
all
elected
individuals
have
been
identified,
when
N
people
are
eligible
for
M
(less
than
N)
shortincomplete terms. In this case, only the names of those N individuals are provided as input to the procedure. Theshortincomplete terms are assigned in result order.
2.5.3. Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Vacated Seats
An Advisory Board or TAG participant’s seat is vacated when:
- the participant resigns, or
- an Advisory Board or TAG participant changes affiliations such that the Advisory Board and TAG participation constraints are no longer met, or
- the Director dismisses the participant for failing to meet the criteria in section § 3.1 Individual Participation Criteria , or
- their term ends.
If a participant changes affiliation, but the participation constraints are met, that participant’s seat becomes vacant at the next regularly scheduled election for that group.
Vacated seats are filled according to this schedule:
- When an appointed TAG seat is vacated, the Director may re-appoint someone immediately, but no later than the next regularly scheduled election.
-
When
an
elected
seat
on
either
the
AB
or
TAG
is
vacated,
the
seat
is
filled
at
the
next
regularly
scheduled
election
for
the
group
unless
the
group
Chair
requests
that
W3C
hold
an
election
before
then
(for
instance,
due
to
the
group’s
workload).
- The group Chair should not request such an election if the next regularly scheduled election is fewer than three months away.
- The group Chair may request an election, and the election may begin, as soon as a current member gives notice of a resignation, including a resignation effective as of a given date in the future.
When such an election is held, the minimum number of available seats is such that when added to the number of continuing participants, the minimum total number of elected seats is met (6 for the TAG , 9 for the AB ); and the maximum number corresponds to all unoccupied seats. Except for the number of available seats and the length of the terms, the usual rules for Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Elections apply.
3. General Policies for W3C Groups
This
section
describes
general
policies
for
W3C
groups
regarding
participation,
meeting
requirements,
and
decision-making.
These
policies
apply
to
participants
in
For
the
following
groups:
purposes
of
this
Process,
a
W3C
Group
is
one
of
W3C’s
Working
Groups
,
Interest
Groups
,
Advisory
Committee
,
Advisory
Board
,
or
TAG
,
Working
Groups
,
and
Interest
Groups
.
a
participant
is
a
member
of
such
a
group
This
section
describes
general
policies
for
such
groups
regarding
participation,
meeting
requirements,
and
decision-making.
3.1. Individual Participation Criteria
3.1.1. Expectations and Discipline
There are three qualities an individual is expected to demonstrate in order to participate in W3C:
- Technical competence in one’s role;
- The ability to act fairly;
- Social competence in one’s role.
Advisory Committee representatives who nominate individuals from their organization for participation in W3C activities are responsible for assessing and attesting to the qualities of those nominees.
Participants in any W3C activity must abide by the terms and spirit of the W3C Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct [CEPC] and the participation requirements described in “Disclosure” in the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] .
The
Director
may
suspend
take
disciplinary
action,
including
suspending
or
remove
removing
for
cause
a
participant
in
any
group
(including
the
AB
and
TAG
),
where
cause
includes
)
if
serious
and/or
repeated
violations,
such
as
failure
to
meet
the
requirements
on
individual
behavior
of
(a)
this
process,
process
and
in
particular
the
CEPC,
or
(b)
the
membership
agreement,
or
(c)
applicable
laws.
laws,
occur.
Refer
to
the
Guidelines
to
suspend
or
remove
participants
from
groups
.
3.1.1.
3.1.2.
Conflict
of
Interest
Policy
Individuals participating materially in W3C work must disclose significant relationships when those relationships might reasonably be perceived as creating a conflict of interest with the individual’s role at W3C. These disclosures must be kept up-to-date as the individual’s affiliations change and W3C membership evolves (since, for example, the individual might have a relationship with an organization that joins or leaves W3C). Each section in this document that describes a W3C group provides more detail about the disclosure mechanisms for that group.
The ability of an individual to fulfill a role within a group without risking a conflict of interest depends on the individual’s affiliations. When these affiliations change, the individual’s assignment to the role must be evaluated. The role may be reassigned according to the appropriate process. For instance, the Director may appoint a new group Chair when the current Chair changes affiliations (e.g., if there is a risk of conflict of interest, or if there is risk that the Chair’s new employer will be over-represented within a W3C activity).
The following are some scenarios where disclosure is appropriate:
- Paid consulting for an organization whose activity is relevant to W3C, or any consulting compensated with equity (shares of stock, stock options, or other forms of corporate equity).
- A decision-making role/responsibility (such as participating on the Board) in other organizations relevant to W3C.
- A position on a publicly visible advisory body, even if no decision-making authority is involved.
Individuals seeking assistance on these matters should contact the Team .
Team members are subject to the W3C Team conflict of interest policy [CONFLICT-POLICY] .
3.1.2.
3.1.3.
Individuals
Representing
a
Member
Organization
Generally, individuals representing a Member in an official capacity within W3C are employees of the Member organization. However, an Advisory Committee representative may designate a non-employee to represent the Member. Non-employee Member representatives must disclose relevant affiliations to the Team and to any group in which the individual participates.
In exceptional circumstances (e.g., situations that might jeopardize the progress of a group or create a conflict of interest ), the Director may decline to allow an individual designated by an Advisory Committee representative to participate in a group.
A group charter may limit the number of individuals representing a W3C Member (or group of related Members ).
3.2. Meetings
W3C
groups
(including
the
Advisory
Committee
,
Advisory
Board
,
TAG
,
and
Working
Groups
)
should
observe
the
meeting
The
requirements
in
this
section.
section
apply
to
the
official
meetings
of
any
W3C
group
.
W3C distinguishes two types of meetings:
- A face-to-face meeting is one where most of the attendees are expected to participate in the same physical location.
- A distributed meeting is one where most of the attendees are expected to participate from remote locations (e.g., by telephone, video conferencing, or IRC ).
A Chair may invite an individual with a particular expertise to attend a meeting on an exceptional basis. This person is a meeting guest, not a group participant . Meeting guests do not have voting rights . It is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that all meeting guests respect the chartered level of confidentiality and other group requirements.
3.2.1. Meeting Scheduling and Announcements
Meeting announcements should be sent to all appropriate group mailing lists, i.e. those most relevant to the anticipated meeting participants.
The
following
table
lists
requirements
recommendations
for
organizing
a
meeting:
Face-to-face meetings | Distributed meetings | |
---|---|---|
Meeting announcement (before) | eight weeks * | one week * |
Agenda available (before) | two weeks | 24 hours (or longer if a meeting is scheduled after a weekend or holiday) |
Participation confirmed (before) | three days | 24 hours |
Action items available (after) | three days | 24 hours |
Minutes available (after) | two weeks | 48 hours |
* To allow proper planning (e.g., travel arrangements), the Chair is responsible for giving sufficient advance notice about the date and location of a meeting. Shorter notice for a meeting is allowed provided that there are no objections from group participants.
3.2.2. Meeting Minutes
Groups should take and retain minutes of their meetings, and must record any official group decisions made during the meeting discussions. Details of the discussion leading to such decisions are not required, provided that the rationale for the group decision is nonetheless clear.
3.2.3. Meeting Recordings and Transcripts
No-one may take an audio or video recording of a meeting, or retain an automated transcript, unless the intent is announced at the start of the meeting, and no-one participating in the recorded portion of the meeting withholds consent. If consent is withheld by anyone, recording/retention must not occur. The announcement must cover: (a) who will have access to the recording or transcript and (b) the purpose/use of it and (c) how it will be retained (e.g. privately, in a cloud service) and for how long.
3.3. Consensus
Consensus
is
a
core
value
of
W3C.
To
promote
consensus,
the
W3C
process
requires
Chairs
to
ensure
that
groups
consider
all
legitimate
views
and
objections,
and
endeavor
to
resolve
them,
whether
these
views
and
objections
are
expressed
by
the
active
participants
of
the
group
or
by
others
(e.g.,
another
W3C
group,
a
group
in
another
organization,
or
the
general
public).
Decisions
may
be
made
during
meetings
(
face-to-face
or
distributed
)
as
well
as
through
email.
persistent
text-based
discussions
.
Note: The Director, CEO, and COO have the role of assessing consensus within the Advisory Committee.
The following terms are used in this document to describe the level of support for a decision among a set of eligible individuals:
- Consensus :
- A substantial number of individuals in the set support the decision and nobody in the set registers a Formal Objection . Individuals in the set may abstain. Abstention is either an explicit expression of no opinion or silence by an individual in the set.
- Unanimity :
- The particular case of consensus where all individuals in the set support the decision (i.e., no individual in the set abstains).
- Dissent :
- At least one individual in the set registers a Formal Objection .
By default, the set of individuals eligible to participate in a decision is the set of group participants. The Process Document does not require a quorum for decisions (i.e., the minimal number of eligible participants required to be present before the Chair can call a question). A charter may include a quorum requirement for consensus decisions.
Where unanimity is not possible, a group should strive to make consensus decisions where there is significant support and few abstentions. The Process Document does not require a particular percentage of eligible participants to agree to a motion in order for a decision to be made. To avoid decisions where there is widespread apathy, (i.e., little support and many abstentions), groups should set minimum thresholds of active support before a decision can be recorded. The appropriate percentage may vary depending on the size of the group and the nature of the decision. A charter may include threshold requirements for consensus decisions. For instance, a charter might require a supermajority of eligible participants (i.e., some established percentage above 50%) to support certain types of consensus decisions.
If questions or disagreements arise, the final determination of consensus remains with the chair.
3.3.1. Managing Dissent
In some cases, even after careful consideration of all points of view, a group might find itself unable to reach consensus. The Chair may record a decision where there is dissent (i.e., there is at least one Formal Objection ) so that the group can make progress (for example, to produce a deliverable in a timely manner). Dissenters cannot stop a group’s work simply by saying that they cannot live with a decision. When the Chair believes that the Group has duly considered the legitimate concerns of dissenters as far as is possible and reasonable, the group should move on.
Groups should favor proposals that create the weakest objections. This is preferred over proposals that are supported by a large majority but that cause strong objections from a few people. As part of making a decision where there is dissent , the Chair is expected to be aware of which participants work for the same (or related ) Member organizations and weigh their input accordingly.
3.3.2. Recording and Reporting Formal Objections
In the W3C process, an individual may register a Formal Objection to a decision. A Formal Objection to a group decision is one that the reviewer requests that the Director consider as part of evaluating the related decision (e.g., in response to a request to advance a technical report).
Note: In this document, the term “Formal Objection” is used to emphasize this process implication: Formal Objections receive Director consideration. The word “objection” used alone has ordinary English connotations.
An
individual
who
registers
a
Formal
Objection
should
cite
technical
arguments
and
propose
changes
that
would
remove
the
Formal
Objection
;
these
proposals
may
be
vague
or
incomplete.
Formal
Objections
that
do
not
provide
substantive
arguments
or
rationale
are
unlikely
to
receive
serious
consideration
by
the
Director.
consideration.
A record of each Formal Objection must be publicly available . A Call for Review (of a document) to the Advisory Committee must identify any Formal Objections .
3.3.3. Formally Addressing an Issue
In the context of this document, a group has formally addressed an issue when it has sent a public, substantive response to the reviewer who raised the issue. A substantive response is expected to include rationale for decisions (e.g., a technical explanation, a pointer to charter scope, or a pointer to a requirements document). The adequacy of a response is measured against what a W3C reviewer would generally consider to be technically sound. If a group believes that a reviewer’s comments result from a misunderstanding, the group should seek clarification before reaching a decision.
As a courtesy, both Chairs and reviewers should set expectations for the schedule of responses and acknowledgments. The group should reply to a reviewer’s initial comments in a timely manner. The group should set a time limit for acknowledgment by a reviewer of the group’s substantive response; a reviewer cannot block a group’s progress. It is common for a reviewer to require a week or more to acknowledge and comment on a substantive response. The group’s responsibility to respond to reviewers does not end once a reasonable amount of time has elapsed. However, reviewers should realize that their comments will carry less weight if not sent to the group in a timely manner.
Substantive responses should be recorded. The group should maintain an accurate summary of all substantive issues and responses to them (e.g., in the form of an issues list with links to mailing list archives).
3.3.4. Reopening a Decision When Presented With New Information
The Chair may reopen a decision when presented with new information, including:
- additional technical information,
- comments by email from participants who were unable to attend a scheduled meeting,
- comments by email from meeting attendees who chose not to speak out during a meeting (e.g., so they could confer later with colleagues or for cultural reasons).
The Chair should record that a decision has been reopened, and must do so upon request from a group participant.
3.4. Votes
A group should only conduct a vote to resolve a substantive issue after the Chair has determined that all available means of reaching consensus through technical discussion and compromise have failed, and that a vote is necessary to break a deadlock. In this case the Chair must record (e.g., in the minutes of the meeting or in an archived email message):
- an explanation of the issue being voted on;
- the decision to conduct a vote (e.g., a simple majority vote) to resolve the issue;
- the outcome of the vote;
- any Formal Objections.
In order to vote to resolve a substantive issue, an individual must be a group participant . Each organization represented in the group must have at most one vote, even when the organization is represented by several participants in the group (including Invited Experts). For the purposes of voting:
- A Member or group of related Members is considered a single organization.
- The Team is considered an organization.
Unless the charter states otherwise, Invited Experts may vote.
If a participant is unable to attend a vote, that individual may authorize anyone at the meeting to act as a proxy . The absent participant must inform the Chair in writing who is acting as proxy, with written instructions on the use of the proxy. For a Working Group or Interest Group, see the related requirements regarding an individual who attends a meeting as a substitute for a participant.
A group may vote for other purposes than to resolve a substantive issue. For instance, the Chair often conducts a “straw poll” vote as a means of determining whether there is consensus about a potential decision.
A group may also vote to make a process decision. For example, it is appropriate to decide by simple majority whether to hold a meeting in San Francisco or San Jose (there’s not much difference geographically). When simple majority votes are used to decide minor issues, voters are not required to state the reasons for votes, and the group is not required to record individual votes.
A group charter may include formal voting procedures (e.g., quorum or threshold requirements) for making decisions about substantive issues.
Procedures for Advisory Committee votes are described separately.
3.5.
Appeal
of
Chair
Decisions
and
Group
Decisions
Groups resolve issues through dialog. Individuals who disagree strongly with a decision should register with the Chair any Formal Objections (e.g., to a decision made as the result of a vote ).
As
detailed
in
other
parts
of
this
document,
the
Chair
of
a
Working
Group
or
Interest
Group
has
the
prerogative
to
make
certain
decisions
based
on
their
own
judgment.
Such
decisions
are
called
Chair
Decisions
chair
decisions
.
In
contrast,
decisions
taken
by
the
Chair
of
a
Working
Group
or
Interest
Group
on
the
basis
of
having
assessed
the
consensus
of
the
group
or
following
a
vote
(see
§ 3.4
Votes
)
are
called
Group
Decisions
.
group
decisions
(also
known
as
group
“resolutions”).
When group participants believe that their concerns are not being duly considered by the group or the Chair , they may ask the Director (for representatives of a Member organization, via their Advisory Committee representative) to confirm or deny the decision. This is a Group Decision Appeal or a Chair Decision Appeal . The participants should also make their requests known to the Team Contact . The Team Contact must inform the Director when a group participant has raised concerns about due process.
Any requests to the Director to confirm a decision must include a summary of the issue (whether technical or procedural), decision, and rationale for the objection. All counter-arguments, rationales, and decisions must be recorded.
Procedures for Advisory Committee appeals are described separately.
3.6. Resignation from a Group
A W3C Member or Invited Expert may resign from a group. On written notification from an Advisory Committee representative or Invited Expert to the team, the Member and their representatives or the Invited Expert will be deemed to have resigned from the relevant group. The team must record the notification. See “Exclusion and Resignation from the Working Group” in the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] for information about obligations remaining after resignation from certain groups.
3.7. Tooling
For W3C Groups operating under this Process, a core operating principle is to allow access across disabilities, across country borders, and across time. Thus in order to allow all would-be participants to effectively participate, to allow future participants and observers to understand the rationale and origins of current decisions, and to guarantee long-lived access to its publications, W3C requires that:
- All reports, publications, or other deliverables produced by the group for public consumption (i.e. intended for use or reference outside its own membership) should be published and promoted at a W3C-controlled URL, and backed up by W3C systems such that if the underlying service is discontinued, W3C can continue to serve such content without breaking incoming links or other key functionality.
- All reports, publications, or other deliverables produced by the group for public consumption should follow best practices for internationalization and for accessibility to people with disabilities. Network access to W3C-controlled domains may be assumed.
-
Official
meeting
minutes
and
other
records
of
decisions
made
must
be
archived
by
W3C
for
future
reference;
and
other
persistent
text-based
discussions
sponsored
by
the
group,
pertaining
to
their
work
and
intended
to
be
referenceable
by
all
group
members
should
be.
This
includes
discussions
conducted
over
email
lists
or
in
issue-tracking
services
or
any
equivalent
fora.
Note: The lack, or loss, of such archives does not by itself invalidate an otherwise-valid decision.
-
Any
tooling
used
by
the
group
for
producing
its
documentation
and
deliverables
or
for
official
group
discussions
should
be
usable
(without
additional
cost)
by
all
who
wish
to
participate,
including
people
with
disabilities,
to
allow
their
effective
participation.
Note: If a new participant joins who cannot use the tool, this can require the Working Group to change its tooling or operate some workaround.
- All tools and archives used by the group for its discussions and recordkeeping should be documented such that new participants and observers can easily find the group’s tools and records.
The Team is responsible for ensuring adherence to these rules and for bringing any group not in compliance into compliance.
4. Dissemination Policies
4.1. Public communication
The Team is responsible for managing communication within W3C and with the general public (e.g., news services, press releases, managing the Web site and access privileges, and managing calendars). Members should solicit review by the Team prior to issuing press releases about their work within W3C.
The Team makes every effort to ensure the persistence and availability of the following public information:
-
W3C
technical
reports
whose
publication
has
been
approved by the Director.approved. Per the Membership Agreement, W3C technical reports (and software) are available free of charge to the general public; (refer to the W3C Document License [DOC-LICENSE] ). - A mission statement [MISSION] that explains the purpose and mission of W3C, the key benefits for Members, and the organizational structure of W3C.
- Legal documents, including the Membership Agreement [MEMBER-AGREEMENT] and documentation of any legal commitments W3C has with other entities.
- The Process Document.
- Public results of W3C activities and Workshops .
To keep the Members abreast of W3C meetings, Workshops , and review deadlines, the Team provides them with a regular (e.g., weekly) news service and maintains a calendar [CALENDAR] of official W3C events. Members are encouraged to send schedule and event information to the Team for inclusion on this calendar.
4.1.
4.2.
Confidentiality
Levels
There are three principal levels of access to W3C information (on the W3C Web site, in W3C meetings, etc.): public, Member-only, and Team-only.
While much information made available by W3C is public, “ Member-only ” information is available to authorized parties only, including representatives of Member organizations, Invited Experts , the Advisory Board, the TAG, and the Team. For example, the charter of some Working Groups may specify a Member-only confidentiality level for group proceedings.
“ Team-only ” information is available to the Team and other authorized parties.
Those authorized to access Member-only and Team-only information:
- must treat the information as confidential within W3C,
- must use reasonable efforts to maintain the proper level of confidentiality, and
- must not release this information to the general public or press.
The Team must provide mechanisms to protect the confidentiality of Member-only information and ensure that authorized parties have proper access to this information. Documents should clearly indicate whether they require Member-only confidentiality. Individuals uncertain of the confidentiality level of a piece of information should contact the Team.
Advisory Committee representatives may authorize Member-only access to Member representatives and other individuals employed by the Member who are considered appropriate recipients. For instance, it is the responsibility of the Advisory Committee representative and other employees and official representatives of the organization to ensure that Member-only news announcements are distributed for internal use only within their organization. Information about Member mailing lists is available in the New Member Orientation [INTRO] .
4.1.1.
4.3.
Changing
Confidentiality
Level
As a benefit of membership, W3C provides some Team-only and Member-only channels for certain types of communication. For example, Advisory Committee representatives can send reviews to a Team-only channel. However, for W3C processes with a significant public component, such as the technical report development process, it is also important for information that affects decision-making to be publicly available. The Team may need to communicate Team-only information to a Working Group or the public. Similarly, a Working Group whose proceedings are Member-only must make public information pertinent to the technical report development process.
This document clearly indicates which information must be available to Members or the public, even though that information was initially communicated on Team-only or Member-only channels. Only the Team and parties authorized by the Team may change the level of confidentiality of this information. When doing so:
- The Team must use a version of the information that was expressly provided by the author for the new confidentiality level. In Calls for Review and other similar messages, the Team should remind recipients to provide such alternatives.
- The Team must not attribute the version for the new confidentiality level to the author without the author’s consent.
- If the author has not conveyed to the Team a version that is suitable for another confidentiality level, the Team may make available a version that reasonably communicates what is required, while respecting the original level of confidentiality, and without attribution to the original author.
5. Working Groups and Interest Groups
This document defines two types of groups:
- Working Groups .
-
Working
Groups
typically
produce
deliverables
(e.g.,
Recommendation
Track
technical
reports
,
software,
test
suites,
and
reviews
of
the
deliverables
of
other
groups).groups) as defined in their charter . There are additional participation requirements described in the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] . - Interest Groups .
- The primary goal of an Interest Group is to bring together people who wish to evaluate potential Web technologies and policies. An Interest Group is a forum for the exchange of ideas.
Interest Groups do not publish Recommendation Track technical reports ; see information about maturity levels for Interest Groups .
5.1. Requirements for All Working and Interest Groups
Each group must have a charter. Requirements for the charter depend on the group type. All group charters must be public (even if other proceedings of the group are Member-only ).
Each group must have a Chair (or co-Chairs) to coordinate the group’s tasks. The Director appoints (and re-appoints) Chairs for all groups. The Chair is a Member representative , a Team representative , or an Invited Expert , (invited by the Director). The requirements of this document that apply to those types of participants apply to Chairs as well. The role of the Chair [CHAIR] is described in the Art of Consensus [GUIDE] .
Each group must have a Team Contact , who acts as the interface between the Chair , group participants, and the rest of the Team. The role of the Team Contact [TEAM-CONTACT] is described in the Art of Consensus [GUIDE] . The Chair and the Team Contact of a group should not be the same individual.
Each
group
must
have
an
archived
mailing
list
for
formal
group
communication
(e.g.,
for
meeting
announcements
and
minutes,
minutes
,
documentation
of
decisions,
and
Formal
Objections
to
decisions).
It
is
the
responsibility
of
the
Chair
and
Team
Contact
to
ensure
that
new
participants
are
subscribed
to
all
relevant
mailing
lists.
Refer
to
the
list
of
group
mailing
lists
[GROUP-MAIL]
.
A Chair may form task forces (composed of group participants) to carry out assignments for the group. The scope of these assignments must not exceed the scope of the group’s charter. A group should document the process it uses to create task forces (e.g., each task force might have an informal "charter"). Task forces do not publish technical reports ; the Working Group may choose to publish their results as part of a technical report.
5.2. Working Groups and Interest Groups
Although Working Groups and Interest Groups have different purposes, they share some characteristics, and so are defined together in the following sections.
5.2.1. Working Group and Interest Group Participation Requirements
There are three types of individual participants in a Working Group : Member representatives , Invited Experts , and Team representatives (including the Team Contact ).
There are four types of individual participants in an Interest Group : the same three types as for Working Groups plus, for an Interest Group where the only participation requirement is mailing list subscription , public participants .
Except where noted in this document or in a group charter, all participants share the same rights and responsibilities in a group; see also the individual participation criteria .
A participant may represent more than one organization in a Working Group or Interest Group . Those organizations must all be members of the group.
An individual may become a Working or Interest Group participant at any time during the group’s existence. See also relevant requirements in “Joining an Already Established Working Group” in the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] .
On an exceptional basis, a Working or Interest Group participant may designate a substitute to attend a meeting and should inform the Chair . The substitute may act on behalf of the participant, including for votes . For the substitute to vote, the participant must inform the Chair in writing in advance. As a courtesy to the group, if the substitute is not well-versed in the group’s discussions, the regular participant should authorize another participant to act as proxy for votes.
To allow rapid progress, Working Groups are intended to be small (typically fewer than 15 people) and composed of experts in the area defined by the charter. In principle, Interest Groups have no limit on the number of participants. When a Working Group grows too large to be effective, W3C may split it into an Interest Group (a discussion forum) and a much smaller Working Group (a core group of highly dedicated participants).
See also the licensing obligations on Working Group participants in “Licensing Obligations” in the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] , and the patent claim exclusion process in “Exclusion From W3C RF Licensing Requirements” in the Patent Policy.
5.2.1.1. Member Representative in a Working Group
An individual is a Member representative in a Working Group if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
- the Advisory Committee representative of the Member in question has designated the individual as a Working Group participant, and
- the individual qualifies for Member representation .
To designate an individual as a Member representative in a Working Group , an Advisory Committee representative must provide the Chair and Team Contact with all of the following information , in addition to any other information required by the Call for Participation and charter (including the participation requirements of the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] ):
- The name of the W3C Member the individual represents and whether the individual is an employee of that Member organization;
- A statement that the individual accepts the participation terms set forth in the charter (with an indication of charter date or version);
- A statement that the Member will provide the necessary financial support for participation (e.g., for travel, telephone calls, and conferences).
A Member participates in a Working Group from the moment the first Member representative joins the group until either of the following occurs:
- the group closes, or
- the Member resigns from the Working Group; this is done through the Member’s Advisory Committee representative.
5.2.1.2. Member Representative in an Interest Group
When the participation requirements exceed Interest Group mailing list subscription , an individual is a Member representative in an Interest Group if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
- the Advisory Committee representative of the Member in question has designated the individual as an Interest Group participant, and
- the individual qualifies for Member representation .
To designate an individual as a Member representative in an Interest Group , the Advisory Committee representative must follow the instructions in the Call for Participation and charter.
Member participation in an Interest Group ceases under the same conditions as for a Working Group.
5.2.1.3. Invited Expert in a Working Group
The Chair may invite an individual with a particular expertise to participate in a Working Group. This individual may represent an organization in the group (e.g., if acting as a liaison with another organization).
An individual is an Invited Expert in a Working Group if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
- the Chair has designated the individual as a group participant,
- the Team Contact has agreed with the Chair’s choice, and
- the individual has provided the information required of an Invited Expert to the Chair and Team Contact.
To designate an individual as an Invited Expert in a Working Group, the Chair must inform the Team Contact and provide rationale for the choice. When the Chair and the Team Contact disagree about a designation, the Director determines whether the individual will be invited to participate in the Working Group.
To participate in a Working Group as an Invited Expert , an individual must :
- identify the organization, if any, the individual represents as a participant in this group,
- agree to the terms of the invited expert and collaborators agreement [COLLABORATORS-AGREEMENT] ,
- accept the participation terms set forth in the charter, including the participation requirements of the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] , especially in “Note on Licensing Commitments for Invited Experts” and in “Disclosure”, indicating a specific charter date or version,
- disclose whether the individual is an employee of a W3C Member; see the conflict of interest policy ,
- provide a statement of who will provide the necessary financial support for the individual’s participation (e.g., for travel, telephone calls, and conferences), and
- if the individual’s employer (including a self-employed individual) or the organization the individual represents is not a W3C Member, indicate whether that organization intends to join W3C. If the organization does not intend to join W3C, indicate reasons the individual is aware of for this choice.
The Chair should not designate as an Invited Expert in a Working Group an individual who is an employee of a W3C Member. The Chair must not use Invited Expert status to circumvent participation limits imposed by the charter .
An Invited Expert participates in a Working Group from the moment the individual joins the group until any of the following occurs:
- the group closes, or
- the Chair or Director withdraws the invitation to participate, or
- the individual resigns .
5.2.1.4. Invited Expert in an Interest Group
When the participation requirements exceed Interest Group mailing list subscription , the participation requirements for an Invited Expert in an Interest Group are the same as those for an Invited Expert in a Working Group .
5.2.1.5. Team Representative in a Working Group
An individual is a Team representative in a Working Group when so designated by W3C management. Team representatives both contribute to the technical work and help ensure the group’s proper integration with the rest of W3C.
A Team representative participates in a Working Group from the moment the individual joins the group until any of the following occurs:
- the group closes, or
- W3C management changes Team representation by sending email to the Chair, copying the group mailing list.
The
Team
participates
in
a
Working
Group
from
the
moment
the
Director
announces
the
creation
of
the
group
is
announced
until
the
group
closes.
5.2.1.6. Team Representative in an Interest Group
When the participation requirements exceed Interest Group mailing list subscription , an individual is a Team representative in an Interest Group when so designated by W3C management.
5.2.2. Working Group and Interest Group Charter Development
W3C
creates
a
charter
based
on
interest
from
the
Members
and
Team.
The
Team
must
notify
the
Advisory
Committee
when
a
charter
for
a
new
Working
Group
or
Interest
Group
is
in
development.
This
is
intended
to
raise
awareness,
even
if
no
formal
proposal
is
yet
available.
Advisory
Committee
representatives
may
provide
feedback
on
the
Advisory
Committee
discussion
list
.
or
via
other
designated
channels.
W3C may begin work on a Working Group or Interest Group charter at any time.
5.2.3. Advisory Committee Review of a Working Group or Interest Group Charter
The Director must solicit Advisory Committee review of every new or substantively modified Working Group or Interest Group charter, except for either:
-
a charter extension
-
substantive changes to a charter that do not affect the way the group functions in any significant way.
The review period must be at least 28 days. The following are examples of substantive changes that would not require an Advisory Committee Review : the addition of an in-scope deliverable, a change of Team Contact , or a change of Chair . Such changes must nonetheless be announced to the Advisory Committee and to participants in the Working or in the Interest Group , and a rationale must be provided.
The
Director’s
Call
for
Review
of
a
substantively
modified
charter
must
highlight
important
changes
(e.g.,
regarding
deliverables
or
resource
allocation)
and
include
rationale
for
the
changes.
As part of the Advisory Committee review of any new or substantively modified Working Group charter, any Advisory Committee representative may request an extended review period.
Such a request must be submitted with a Member’s comments in response to the Call for Review. Upon receipt of any such request, the Director must ensure that the Call for Participation for the Working Group occurs at least 60 days after the Call for Review of the charter.
5.2.4. Call for Participation in a Working Group or Interest Group
After
Advisory
Committee
review
of
a
Working
Group
or
Interest
Group
charter
,
the
Director
may
issue
a
Call
for
Participation
to
the
Advisory
Committee.
Charters
may
be
amended
based
on
review
comments
before
the
Director
issues
a
Call
for
Participation.
For a new group, this announcement officially creates the group. The announcement must include a reference to the charter , the name(s) of the group’s Chair (s), and the name(s) of the Team Contact (s).
After a Call for Participation, any Member representatives and Invited Experts must be designated (or re-designated). When a group is re-chartered, individuals participating in the Working Group or Interest Group before the new Call for Participation may attend any meetings held within forty-five (45) days of the Call for Participation even if they have not yet formally rejoined the group (i.e., committed to the terms of the charter and patent policy).
Advisory
Committee
representatives
may
initiate
an
Advisory
Committee
Appeal
against
a
Director’s
the
decision
to
create
or
substantially
modify
a
Working
Group
or
Interest
Group
charter.
5.2.5. Working Group and Interest Group Charter Extension
To extend a Working Group or Interest Group charter with no other substantive modifications, the Director announces the extension to the Advisory Committee. The announcement must indicate the new duration. The announcement must also include rationale for the extension, a reference to the charter , the name(s) of the group’s Chair (s), the name of the Team Contact , and instructions for joining the group.
After a charter extension, Advisory Committee representatives and the Chair are not required to re-designate Member representatives and Invited Experts .
Advisory Committee representatives may initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal against a Director’s decision regarding the extension of a Working Group or Interest Group charter.
5.2.6. Working Group and Interest Group Charters
A Working Group or Interest Group charter must include all of the following information.
- The group’s mission (e.g., develop a technology or process, review the work of other groups);
- The scope of the group’s work and criteria for success;
- The duration of the group (typically from six months to two years);
- The nature of any deliverables (technical reports, reviews of the deliverables of other groups, or software);
-
Expected
milestone
dates
where
available.
Note: A charter is not required to include schedules for review of other group’s deliverables;
- The process for the group to approve the release of deliverables (including intermediate results);
- Any dependencies by groups within or outside of W3C on the deliverables of this group. For any dependencies, the charter must specify the mechanisms for communication about the deliverables;
- Any dependencies of this group on other groups within or outside of W3C. Such dependencies include interactions with W3C Horizontal Groups [CHARTER] ;
- The level of confidentiality of the group’s proceedings and deliverables;
- Meeting mechanisms and expected frequency;
- If known, the date of the first face-to-face meeting . The date of the first face-to-face meeting of a proposed group must not be sooner than eight weeks after the date of the proposal.
- Communication mechanisms to be employed within the group, between the group and the rest of W3C, and with the general public;
- Any voting procedures or requirements other than those specified in § 3.4 Votes ;
- An estimate of the expected time commitment from participants;
- The expected time commitment and level of involvement by the Team (e.g., to track developments, write and edit technical reports, develop code, or organize pilot experiments).
- Intellectual property information. What are the intellectual property (including patents and copyright) considerations affecting the success of the Group? In particular, is there any reason to believe that it will be difficult to meet the Royalty-Free licensing goals in “Licensing Goals for W3C Specifications” in the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] ?
See also the charter requirements in “Licensing Goals for W3C Specifications” in the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] .
For every Recommendation Track deliverable that continues work on technical report published under any other Charter (including a predecessor group of the same name), for which there is at least an existing First Public Working Draft the description of that deliverable in the proposed charter of the adopting Working Group must provide the following information:
- The title, stable URL, and publication date of the Working Draft or other Recommendation-track document that will serve as the basis for work on the deliverable (labeled “ Adopted Draft ”);
- The title, stable URL, and publication date of the document that was used as the basis for its most recent Exclusion Opportunity as per the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] . (labeled “ Exclusion Draft ”); and
-
The
stable
URL
of
the
Working
Group
charter
under
which
the
Exclusion
Draft
was
published
(labeled
the
“
OtherExclusion Draft Charter ”).
All of the above data must be identified in the adopting Working Group’s charter using the labels indicated.
The Adopted Draft and the Exclusion Draft must each be adopted in their entirety and without any modification. The proposed charter must state the dates on which the Exclusion Opportunity that arose on publishing the Exclusion Draft began and ended. As per “Joining an Already Established Working Group” in the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] , this potentially means that exclusions can only be made immediately on joining a Working Group.
An Interest Group charter may include provisions regarding participation, including specifying that the only requirement for participation (by anyone) in the Interest Group is subscription to the Interest Group mailing list . This type of Interest Group may have public participants .
A charter may include provisions other than those required by this document. The charter should highlight whether additional provisions impose constraints beyond those of the W3C Process Document (e.g., limits on the number of individuals in a Working Group who represent the same Member organization or group of related Members ).
5.2.7. Working Group and Interest Group Closure
A Working Group or Interest Group charter specifies a duration for the group. The Director may decide to close a group prior to the date specified in the charter in any of the following circumstances:
- There are insufficient resources to produce chartered deliverables or to maintain the group, according to priorities established within W3C.
- The group produces chartered deliverables ahead of schedule.
The Director closes a Working Group or Interest Group by announcement to the Advisory Committee . Advisory Committee representatives may initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal .
Closing a Working Group has implications with respect to the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] .
6. W3C Technical Report Development Process
The W3C technical report development process is the set of steps and requirements followed by W3C Working Groups to standardize Web technology. The W3C technical report development process is designed to:
- support multiple specification development methodologies
- maximize consensus about the content of stable technical reports
- ensure high technical and editorial quality
- promote consistency among specifications
- facilitate royalty-free, interoperable implementations of Web Standards, and
- earn endorsement by W3C and the broader community.
See also “licensing goals for W3C Specifications” in the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] .
6.1. W3C Technical Reports
Publishing as used in this document refers to producing a version which is listed as a W3C Technical Report on its Technical Reports page https://www.w3.org/TR [TR] .
This
chapter
describes
the
formal
requirements
for
publishing
and
maintaining
a
W3C
Recommendation
or
,
Note
,
or
Registry
Report
.
- Recommendations
-
Working
Groups
develop
technical
reports
on
the
W3C
Recommendation
Track
in
order
to
produce
normative
specifications
or
guidelines
as
standards
for
the
Web.
The
Recommendation
Track
process
incorporates
requirements
for
wide
review
,
adequate
implementation
experience
,
and
consensus
-building,
and
is
subject
to
the
W3C
Patent
Policy
[PATENT-POLICY]
,
under
which
grantsparticipants commit to Royalty-Free IPR licensestofor implementations. See § 6.2 The W3C Recommendation Track for details. - Notes
-
Groups
can
also
publish
documents
as
W3C
Notes
and
W3C
Statements
,
typically
either
to
document
information
other
than
technical
specifications,
such
as
use
cases
motivating
a
specification
and
best
practices
for
its
use, or to clarify the status of work that is abandoned.use. See § 6.3 The Note Track: Notes and Statements for details. - Registries
-
Working
GroupGroups can also publish registries in order to document collections of values or other data. These are typically published in a separate registry report , although they can also be directly embedded in Recommendation Track documents as a registry section . Defining a registry requires wide review andInterestconsensus , but once set up, changes to registry entries are lightweight and can even be done without a Working GroupNotes. See § 6.4 The Registry Track for details.
Individual Working Groups and Interest Groups should adopt additional processes for developing publications, so long as they do not conflict with the requirements in this chapter.
6.1.1. General requirements for Technical Reports
Every document published as part of the technical report development process must be a public document. The index of W3C technical reports [TR] is available at the W3C Web site. W3C strives to make archival documents indefinitely available at their original address in their original form.
Every document published as part of the technical report development process must clearly indicate its maturity level , and must include information about the status of the document. This status information:
- must be unique each time a specification is published ,
- must state which Working Group developed the specification,
- must state how to send comments or file bugs, and where these are recorded,
- must include expectations about next steps,
- should explain how the technology relates to existing international standards and related work inside or outside W3C, and
- should explain or link to an explanation of significant changes from the previous version.
Every Technical Report published as part of the Technical Report development process is edited by one or more editors appointed by a Group Chair . It is the responsibility of these editors to ensure that the decisions of the Group are correctly reflected in subsequent drafts of the technical report. An editor must be a participant, per § 5.2.1 Working Group and Interest Group Participation Requirements in the Group responsible for the document(s) they are editing.
The Team is not required to publish a Technical Report that does not conform to the Team’s Publication Rules [PUBRULES] (e.g., for naming , status information, style, and copyright requirements ). These rules are subject to change by the Team from time to time. The Team must inform group Chairs and the Advisory Committee of any changes to these rules.
The primary language for W3C Technical Reports is English. W3C encourages the translation of its Technical Reports . Information about translations of W3C technical reports [TRANSLATION] is available at the W3C Web site.
6.1.2. Reviews and Review Responsibilities
A document is available for review from the moment it is first published . Working Groups should formally address any substantive review comment about a technical report in a timely manner.
Reviewers should send substantive technical reviews as early as possible. Working Groups are often reluctant to make substantive changes to a mature document, particularly if this would cause significant compatibility problems due to existing implementation. Working Groups should record substantive or interesting proposals raised by reviews but not incorporated into a current specification.
6.1.2.1. Wide Review
The requirements for wide review are not precisely defined by the W3C Process. The objective is to ensure that the entire set of stakeholders of the Web community, including the general public, have had adequate notice of the progress of the Working Group (for example through notices posted to public-review-announce@w3.org ) and were able to actually perform reviews of and provide comments on the specification. A second objective is to encourage groups to request reviews early enough that comments and suggested changes can still be reasonably incorporated in response to the review. Before approving transitions, the Director will consider who has been explicitly offered a reasonable opportunity to review the document, who has provided comments, the record of requests to and responses from reviewers, especially W3C Horizontal Groups [CHARTER] and groups identified as dependencies in the charter or identified as liaisons [LIAISON] , and seek evidence of clear communication to the general public about appropriate times and which content to review and whether such reviews actually occurred.
For example, inviting review of new or significantly revised sections published in Working Drafts, and tracking those comments and the Working Group 's responses, is generally a good practice which would often be considered positive evidence of wide review. Working Groups should follow the W3C Horizontal Groups ’ review processes, and should announce to other W3C Working Groups as well as the general public, especially those affected by this specification, a proposal to enter Candidate Recommendation (for example in approximately 28 days). By contrast a generic statement in a document requesting review at any time is likely not to be considered as sufficient evidence that the group has solicited wide review.
A Working Group could present evidence that wide review has been received, irrespective of solicitation. But it is important to note that receiving many detailed reviews is not necessarily the same as wide review, since they might only represent comment from a small segment of the relevant stakeholder community.
6.1.3. Classes of Changes
This
document
distinguishes
the
following
4
5
classes
of
changes
to
a
specification.
The
first
two
classes
of
change
are
considered
editorial
changes
,
the
latter
next
two
substantive
changes
,
and
the
last
one
registry
changes
.
-
-
No changes to text content
-
- These changes include fixing broken links, style sheets or invalid markup.
-
-
Corrections that do not affect conformance
-
-
Changes
that
reasonable
implementers
would
not
interpret
as
changing
architectural
or
interoperability
requirements
or
their
implementation.
Changes
which
resolve
ambiguities
in
the
specification
are
considered
to
change
(by
clarification)
the
implementation
requirements
and
do
not
fall
into
this
class.
- Examples of changes in this class include correcting non-normative code examples where the code clearly conflicts with normative requirements, clarifying informative use cases or other non-normative text, fixing typos or grammatical errors where the change does not change implementation requirements. If there is any doubt or disagreement as to whether requirements are changed, such changes do not fall into this class.
-
-
Corrections that do not add new features
-
-
These
changes
may
affect
conformance
to
the
specification.
A
change
that
affects
conformance
is
one
that:
- makes conforming data, processors, or other conforming agents become non-conforming according to the new version, or
- makes non-conforming data, processors, or other agents become conforming, or
- clears up an ambiguity or under-specified part of the specification in such a way that data, a processor, or an agent whose conformance was once unclear becomes clearly either conforming or non-conforming.
-
-
New features
-
- Changes that add a new functionality, element, etc.
-
-
Changes to the contents of a registry table
-
- Changes that add, remove, or alter registry entries in a registry table .
6.1.4. Errata Management
Tracking errors is an important part of a Working Group 's ongoing care of a technical report ; for this reason, the scope of a Working Group charter generally allows time for work after publication of a Recommendation . In this Process Document, the term “ erratum ” (plural “errata”) refers to any error that can be resolved by one or more changes in classes 1-3 of section § 6.1.3 Classes of Changes .
Working Groups must keep a public record of errors that are reported by readers and implementers for Recommendations . Such error reports should be compiled no less frequently than quarterly.
Working Groups decide how to document errata. Such documentation must identify the affected technical report text and describe the error; it may also describe some possible solution(s). Readers of the technical report should be able easily to find and see the errata that apply to that specific technical report with their associated tests. Errata may be documented in a separate errata page or tracking system. They may , in addition or alternatively, be annotated inline alongside the affected technical report text or at the start or end of the most relevant section(s).
6.1.5.
Candidate
Changes
Amendments
An
erratum
may
be
accompanied
by
an
informative,
candidate
correction
approved
by
the
consensus
of
the
Working
Group
.
When
annotated
inline,
errata—
Note:
Annotating
changes
in
this
way
allows
more
mature
documents
such
as
Recommendations
and
Candidate
Recommendations
to
be
updated
quickly
with
the
Working
Group’s
most
current
thinking,
even
when
the
candidate
changes
amendments
have
not
yet
received
sufficient
review
or
implementation
experience
to
be
normatively
incorporated
into
the
specification
proper.
A candidate addition is similar to a candidate correction , except that it proposes a new feature rather than an error correction.
If there is no group chartered to maintain a technical report , the Team may maintain its errata and associated candidate corrections . Such corrections must be marked as Team correction , and do not constitute a normative portion of the Recommendation, as defined in the Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] (i.e. they are not covered by the Patent Policy). The Team must solicit wide review on Team corrections that it produces.
Candidate
corrections
and
candidate
additions
are
collectively
known
as
candidate
changes
amendments
.
In
addition
to
their
actual
maturity
level
,
published
REC
Track
documents
with
candidate
changes
amendments
are
also
considered,
for
the
purpose
of
the
W3C
Patent
Policy
[PATENT-POLICY]
,
to
be
Working
Drafts
with
those
candidate
changes
amendments
treated
as
normative.
6.1.6. License Grants from Non-Participants
When a party who is not already obligated under the Patent Policy offers a change in class 3 or 4 (as described in § 6.1.3 Classes of Changes ) to a technical report under this process the Team must request a recorded royalty-free patent commitment; for a change in class 4, the Team must secure such commitment. Such commitment should cover, at a minimum, all the party’s Essential Claims both in the contribution, and that become Essential Claims as a result of incorporating the contribution into the draft that existed at the time of the contribution, on the terms specified in the “W3C Royalty-Free (RF) Licensing Requirements” section of the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] .
6.2. The W3C Recommendation Track
When
advancing
a
technical
report
to
Recommendation,
typically
a
series
of
Working
Drafts
Groups
are
published
,
each
of
which
refines
a
document
under
development
create
specifications
and
guidelines
to
complete
the
scope
of
work
envisioned
by
a
Working
Group
's
charter
.
For
a
These
technical
specification,
once
reports
undergo
cycles
of
revision
and
review
as
they
advance
towards
W3C
Recommendation
status.
Once
review
suggests
the
Working
Group
has
met
their
requirements
satisfactorily
for
a
new
standard,
there
is
including
wide
review
,
a
Candidate
Recommendation
phase.
This
phase
allows
the
entire
W3C
membership
to
provide
feedback
on
the
specification,
while
the
Working
Group
to
formally
collects
collect
implementation
experience
to
demonstrate
that
the
specification
works
in
practice.
The
next
phase
is
a
Proposed
Recommendation
,
to
finalize
At
the
review
end
of
W3C
Members.
If
the
Director
determines
that
W3C
Member
review
supports
a
specification
becoming
a
standard,
process,
the
Advisory
Committee
reviews
the
mature
technical
report,
and
if
there
is
support
from
its
Membership,
W3C
publishes
it
as
a
Recommendation
.
In summary, the W3C Recommendation Track consists of:
- Publication of the First Public Working Draft .
- Publication of zero or more revised Working Drafts .
- Publication of one or more Candidate Recommendations .
- Publication of a Proposed Recommendation .
-
Publication
as
a
W3C
Recommendation
.
Possibly, publication as an Amended Recommendation .
This
Process
defines
certain
Recommendation
Track
publications
as
Patent
Review
Drafts
.
Under
the
2004
(updated
in
2017)
Patent
Policy,
Policy
(and
its
2017
update)
[PATENT-POLICY-2004]
,
these
correspond
to
“Last
Call
Working
Draft”
in
the
Patent
Policy
[PATENT-POLICY-2017]
;
Under
Policy;
Starting
from
the
2020
Patent
Policy,
Policy
[PATENT-POLICY-2020]
,
these
correspond
to
“Patent
Review
Draft”
in
the
Patent
Policy
[PATENT-POLICY]
.
W3C may end work on a technical report at any time.
The
Director
may
decline
a
request
to
advance
in
maturity
level,
requiring
a
Working
Group
to
conduct
further
work,
and
may
require
the
specification
to
return
to
a
lower
maturity
level
.
The
Director
Team
must
inform
the
Advisory
Committee
and
Working
Group
Chairs
when
a
Working
Group
's
request
for
a
specification
to
advance
in
maturity
level
is
declined
and
the
specification
is
returned
to
a
Working
Group
for
further
work.
6.2.1. Maturity Levels on the Recommendation Track
- Working Draft ( WD )
-
A
Working
Draft
is
a
document
that
W3C
has
published
on
the
W3C’s
Technical
Reports
page
[TR]
for
review
by
the
community
(including
W3C
Members),
the
public,
and
other
technical
organizations,
and
for
simple
historical
reference.
Some,
but
not
all,
Working
Drafts
are
meant
to
advance
to
Recommendation
;
see
the
document
status
section
of
a
Working
Draft
for
the
group’s
expectations.
Working
Drafts
do
not
necessarily
represent
a
consensus
of
the
Working
Group
with
respect
to
their
content,
and
do
not
imply
any
endorsement
by
W3C
or
its
members
beyond
agreement
to
work
on
a
general
area
of
technology.
Nevertheless
the
Working
Group
decided
to
adopt
the
Working
Draft
as
the
basis
for
their
work
at
the
time
of
adoption.
A
Working
Draft
is
suitable
for
gathering
wide
review
prior
to
advancing
to
the
next
stage
of
maturity.
For all Working Drafts a Working Group:
- should document outstanding issues, and parts of the document on which the Working Group does not have consensus, and
- may request publication of a Working Draft even if its content is considered unstable and does not meet all Working Group requirements.
The first Working Draft of a technical report is called the First Public Working Draft ( FPWD ), and has patent implications as defined in the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] .
- Candidate Recommendation ( CR )
-
A
Candidate
Recommendation
is
a
document
that
satisfies
the
technical
requirements
of
the
Working
Group
that
produced
it
and
their
dependencies,
or makes substantive corrections to a Recommendation that is not maintained by a Working Group ,and has already received wide review. W3C publishes a Candidate Recommendation to- signal to the wider community that it is time to do a final review
- gather implementation experience
Note: Advancing to Candidate Recommendation indicates that the document is considered complete and fit for purpose, and that no further refinement to the text is expected without additional implementation experience and testing; additional features in a later revision may however be expected. A Candidate Recommendation is expected to be as well-written, detailed, self-consistent, and technically complete as a Recommendation , and acceptable as such if and when the requirements for further advancement are met.
Candidate Recommendation publications take one of two forms:
- Candidate Recommendation Snapshot
-
A
Candidate
Recommendation
Snapshot
corresponds
to
a
Patent
Review
Draft
as
used
in
the
W3C
Patent
Policy
[PATENT-POLICY]
.
Publishing
a
Patent
Review
Draft
triggers
a
Call
for
Exclusions,
per
“Exclusion
From
W3C
RF
Licensing
Requirements”
in
the
W3C
Patent
Policy.
Publication as a Candidate Recommendation Snapshot requires approval of either a Transition Request (for the first Candidate Recommendation publication from another maturity level) or an Update Request (for subsequent Candidate Recommendation Snapshots ).
- Candidate Recommendation Draft
-
A
Candidate
Recommendation
Draft
is
published
on
the
W3C’s
Technical
Reports
page
[TR]
to
integrate
changes
from
the
previous
Candidate
Recommendation
Snapshot
that
the
Working
Group
intends
to
include
in
a
subsequent
Candidate
Recommendation
Snapshot
.
This
allows
for
wider
review
of
the
changes
and
for
ease
of
reference
to
the
integrated
specification.
Any changes published directly into a Candidate Recommendation Draft should be at the same level of quality as a Candidate Recommendation Snapshot . However, the process requirements are minimized so that the Working Group can easily keep the specification up to date.
A Candidate Recommendation Draft does not provide an exclusion
opportunityopportunity; instead, it is considered a Working Draft for the purpose of the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] .
A Rescinded Candidate Recommendation is a Candidate Recommendation in which significant problems have been discovered such that W3C cannot endorse it or continue work on it, for example due to burdensome patent claims that affect implementers and cannot be resolved (see the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] and in particular “PAG Conclusion”). There is no path to restoration for a Rescinded Candidate Recommendation . See “W3C Royalty-Free (RF) Licensing Requirements” in the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] for implication on patent licensing obligations.
- Proposed Recommendation ( PR )
-
A
Proposed
Recommendation
is
a
document
that
has
been
accepted
by
theW3C as of sufficient quality to become a W3C Recommendation . This phase triggers formal review by the Advisory Committee , who may recommend that the document be published as a W3C Recommendation , returned to the Working Group for further work, or abandoned. Substantive changes must not be made to a Proposed Recommendation except by publishing a new Working Draft or Candidate Recommendation . - W3C Recommendation ( REC )
-
A
W3C
Recommendation
is
a
specification
or
set
of
guidelines
or
requirements
that,
after
extensive
consensus
-building,
has
received
the
endorsement
of
theW3C and its Members. W3C recommends the wide deployment of its Recommendations as standards for the Web. The W3C Royalty-Free IPR licenses granted under the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] apply to W3C Recommendations . As technology evolves, a W3C Recommendation may become:-
An Amended Recommendation An Amended Recommendation is a Recommendation that is amended to include substantive changes that do not add new features , and is produced by the W3C at a time when the Recommendation does not fit within the charter of any active Working Group. Since the W3C team rather than a Working Group moves it through the Process, there are implications regarding the scope of Royalty-Free IPR licenses granted under the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] .A Superseded Recommendation -
A
Superseded
Recommendation
is
a
specification
that
has
been
replaced
by
a
newer
version
that
theW3C recommends for new adoption. An Obsolete or Superseded specification has the same status as a W3C Recommendation with regards to W3C Royalty-Free IPR Licenses granted under the Patent Policy.Note: When a Technical Report which had previously been published as a Recommendation is again published as a Recommendation after following the necessary steps to revise it, the latest version replaces the previous one, without the need to invoke the steps of § 6.2.12.3 Abandoning a W3C Recommendation : it is the same document, updated. Explicitly declaring a documented superseded, using the process documented in § 6.2.12.3 Abandoning a W3C Recommendation , is intended for cases where a Recommendation is superseded by a separate Technical Report (or by a document managed outside of W3C).
- An Obsolete Recommendation
-
An
Obsolete
Recommendation
is
a
specification
that
theW3C has determined lacks sufficient market relevance to continue recommending it for implementation, but which does not have fundamental problems that would require it to be Rescinded . If an Obsolete specification gains sufficient market relevance,theW3C may decide to restore it to Recommendation status. - Rescinded Recommendation
- A Rescinded Recommendation is an entire Recommendation that W3C no longer endorses, and believes is unlikely to ever be restored to Recommendation status. See also “W3C Royalty-Free (RF) Licensing Requirements” in the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] .
-
- Discontinued Draft
- A technical report representing the state of a Recommendation-track document at the point at which work on it was discontinued. See § 6.2.12.1 Abandoning an Unfinished Recommendation .
Only sufficiently technically mature work should be advanced.
Note: Should faster advancement to meet scheduling considerations be desired, this can be achieved by reducing the scope of the technical report to a subset that is adequately mature and deferring less stable features to other technical reports.
When publishing an updated version of an existing Candidate Recommendation or Recommendation , technical reports are expected to meet the same maturity criteria as when they are first published under that status. However, in the interest of replacing stale documents with improved ones in a timely manner, if flaws have been discovered in the technical report after its initial publication as a CR or REC that would have been severe enough to reject that publication had they be known in time, it is also permissible to publish an updated CR or REC following the usual process, even if only some of these flaws have been satisfactorily addressed.
Working Groups and Interest Groups may make available Editor’s drafts . Editor’s drafts ( ED ) have no official standing whatsoever, and do not necessarily imply consensus of a Working Group or Interest Group , nor are their contents endorsed in any way by W3C.
6.2.2. Implementation Experience
Implementation experience is required to show that a specification is sufficiently clear, complete, and relevant to market needs, to ensure that independent interoperable implementations of each feature of the specification will be realized. While no exhaustive list of requirements is provided here, when assessing that there is adequate implementation experience the Director will consider (though not be limited to):
- is each feature of the current specification implemented, and how is this demonstrated?
- are there independent interoperable implementations of the current specification?
- are there implementations created by people other than the authors of the specification?
- are implementations publicly deployed?
- is there implementation experience at all levels of the specification’s ecosystem (authoring, consuming, publishing…)?
- are there reports of difficulties or problems with implementation?
Planning and accomplishing a demonstration of (interoperable) implementations can be very time consuming. Groups are often able to work more effectively if they plan how they will demonstrate interoperable implementations early in the development process; for example, developing tests in concert with implementation efforts.
6.2.3. Advancement on the Recommendation Track
For
all
requests
to
advance
a
specification
to
a
new
maturity
level
other
than
Note
(called
Transition
Requests
),
the
Working
Group:
- must record the group’s decision to request advancement.
- must obtain Director approval.
- must publicly document all new features ( class 4 changes ) to the technical report since the previous publication.
- must publicly document if other substantive changes ( class 3 changes ) have been made, and should document the details of such changes.
- should publicly document if editorial changes have been made, and may document the details of such changes.
- must formally address all issues raised about the document since the previous maturity level .
- must provide public documentation of any Formal Objections .
- should report which, if any, of the Working Group 's requirements for this document have changed since the previous step.
- should report any changes in dependencies with other groups.
- should provide information about implementations known to the Working Group .
For
a
First
Public
Working
Draft
there
is
no
“previous
maturity
level”,
so
many
requirements
do
not
apply,
and
approval
is
normally
fairly
automatic.
For
later
stages,
especially
transition
to
Candidate
or
Proposed
Recommendation
,
there
is
usually
a
formal
review
meeting
to
ensure
the
requirements
have
been
met
before
Director
's
approval
is
given.
Transition
Requests
to
First
Public
Working
Draft
or
Candidate
Recommendation
will
not
normally
be
approved
while
a
Working
Group
's
charter
is
undergoing
or
awaiting
a
Director
's
decision
on
an
Advisory
Committee
Review
.
6.2.4. Updating Mature Publications on the Recommendation Track
Certain requests to re-publish a specification within its current maturity level (called Update Requests ) require Director approval. For such update requests , the Working Group:
- must record the group’s decision to request the update.
- must show that the changes have received wide review .
- must obtain Director approval, or fulfill the criteria for § 6.2.4.1 Streamlined Publication Approval .
- must provide public documentation of any Formal Objections .
- must publicly document of all new features ( class 4 changes ) to the technical report since the previous publication.
- must publicly document if other substantive changes ( class 3 changes ) have been made, and should document the details of such changes.
- should publicly document if editorial changes changes have been made, and may document the details of such changes.
- must show that the revised specification meets all Working Group requirements, or explain why the requirements have changed or been deferred,
- should report which, if any, of the Working Group 's requirements for this document have changed since the previous step.
- should report any changes in dependencies with other groups.
- should provide information about implementations known to the Working Group .
There is usually a formal review meeting to ensure the requirements have been met before Director 's approval is given.
Note: Update request approval is expected to be fairly simple compared to getting approval for a transition request .
The
Director
Team
must
announce
the
publication
of
the
revised
specification
to
other
W3C
groups
and
the
Public.
6.2.4.1. Streamlined Publication Approval
Note: These criteria are intentionally stricter than the general requirements for an update request . This is in order to minimize ambiguities and the need for expert judgment, and to make self-evaluation practical.
In order to streamline the publication process in non-controversial cases, approval to an update request is automatically granted without formal review when the following additional criteria are fulfilled:
- There must have been no changes to Working Group requirements about this document.
- For each of the W3C Horizontal Groups [CHARTER] , if the Horizontal Review Group has made available a set criteria under which their review is not necessary, the Working Group must document that these criteria have been fulfilled. Otherwise, the Working Group must show that review from that group has been solicited and received.
- No Formal Objection has been registered against the document.
-
The
Working
Group
must
have
formally
addressed
:
-
all issues raised against the document that resulted in changes since the previous publication
-
all issues raised against changes since the previous publication
-
all issues raised against the document that were closed since the previous publication with no change to the document
The response to each of these issues must be to the satisfaction of the person who raised it: their proposal has been accepted, or a compromise has been found, or they accepted the Working Group’s rationale for rejecting it.
Note: This is stricter than the general Transition Request criteria.
-
Additionally, for updates to Recommendations with substantive changes or with new features :
- Changes to the document are limited to proposed corrections that were included in a Last Call for Review of Proposed Corrections possibly combined with class 1 or 2 changes , and/or (in the case of a Recommendation that allows new features ) proposed additions that were included in a Last Call for Review of Proposed Additions .
-
The
Working
Group
must
show
that
all
changes
have
been
implemented
in
at
least
2
distinct
products
by
2
different
implementers,
as
evidenced
by
passing
tests
of
a
test
suite
providing
extensive
coverage
of
the
changes,
or
an
alternative
streamlined
approval
implementation
requirement
described
in
the
working
Group
charter
has
been
met.
Note: This is stricter than the general criteria for adequate implementation experience .
The Working Group must provide written evidence for these claims, and the Team must make these answers publicly and permanently available.
After publication, if an AC Representative or Team member doubts that the evidence presented supports the claims, they may request that a formal review meeting be convened post facto. If that review finds that the requirements were not fulfilled, the Team may revert the changes by updating in place the status section to indicate that it has been reverted, and by republishing the previously approved version of the technical report.
6.2.5. Publishing a First Public Working Draft
To publish the First Public Working Draft of a document, a Working Group must meet the applicable requirements for advancement .
The
Director
Team
must
announce
the
publication
of
a
First
Public
Working
Draft
to
other
W3C
groups
and
to
the
public.
6.2.6. Revising a Working Draft
A Working Group should publish a Working Draft to the W3C Technical Reports page when there have been significant changes to the previous published document that would benefit from review beyond the Working Group.
If 6 months elapse without significant changes to a specification, a Working Group should publish a revised Working Draft , whose status section should indicate reasons for the lack of change.
To publish a revision of a Working draft, a Working Group:
- must record the group’s decision to request publication. Consensus is not required, as this is a procedural step,
- must provide public documentation of substantive changes to the technical report since the previous Working Draft ,
- should provide public documentation of significant editorial changes to the technical report since the previous step,
- should report which, if any, of the Working Group’s requirements for this document have changed since the previous step,
- should report any changes in dependencies with other groups,
Possible next steps for any Working Draft:
- Revised Working Draft
- Candidate Recommendation
-
Working Group NoteDiscontinued Draft
6.2.7. Transitioning to Candidate Recommendation
To
publish
a
Candidate
Recommendation
,
in
addition
to
meeting
the
requirements
for
advancement
a
Working
Group
,
or
in
the
case
of
a
candidate
Amended
Recommendation
(a
document
intended
to
become
an
Amended
Recommendation
),
the
W3C:
:
- must show that the specification has met all Working Group requirements, or explain why the requirements have changed or been deferred,
- must document changes to dependencies during the development of the specification,
- must document how adequate implementation experience will be demonstrated,
- must specify the deadline for comments, which must be at least 28 days after publication, and should be longer for complex documents,
- must show that the specification has received wide review , and
- may identify features in the document as at risk . These features may be removed before advancement to Proposed Recommendation without a requirement to publish a new Candidate Recommendation .
The
first
Candidate
Recommendation
publication
after
approval
of
a
Transition
Request
is
always
a
Candidate
Recommendation
Snapshot
.
The
Director
Team
must
announce
the
publication
of
the
Candidate
Recommendation
Snapshot
to
other
W3C
groups
and
to
the
public.
Possible next steps after a Candidate Recommendation Snapshot :
- Return to Working Draft
- A revised Candidate Recommendation Snapshot
- A revised Candidate Recommendation Draft
- Proposed Recommendation
-
Working Group NoteDiscontinued Draft
Advisory Committee representatives may initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal of the decision to advance the technical report.
6.2.8. Revising a Candidate Recommendation
6.2.8.1. Publishing a Candidate Recommendation Snapshot
If there are any substantive changes made to a Candidate Recommendation since the previous Candidate Recommendation Snapshot other than to remove features explicitly identified as at risk , the Working Group must meet the requirements of an update request in order to republish.
In addition the Working Group:
- must specify the deadline for further comments, which must be at least 28 days after publication, and should be longer for complex documents,
- may identify features in the document as at risk . These features may be removed before advancement to Proposed Recommendation without a requirement to publish a new Candidate Recommendation .
The
Director
Team
must
announce
the
publication
of
a
revised
Candidate
Recommendation
Snapshot
to
other
W3C
groups
and
to
the
public.
To provide timely updates and patent protection, a Candidate Recommendation Snapshot should be published within 24 months of the Working Group accepting any proposal for a substantive change (and preferably sooner). To make scheduling reviews easier, a Candidate Recommendation Snapshot should not be published more often than approximately once every 6 months.
Note: Substantive changes trigger a new Exclusion Opportunity per “Exclusion From W3C RF Licensing Requirements” in the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] .
6.2.8.2. Publishing a Candidate Recommendation Draft
A Working Group should publish an Update Draft to the W3C Technical Reports page when there have been significant changes to the previous published document that would benefit from review beyond the Working Group.
To publish a revision of a Candidate Recommendation Draft , a Working Group:
- must record the group’s decision to request publication,
- must provide public documentation of substantive changes to the technical report since the previous Candidate Recommendation Snapshot ,
- should provide public documentation of significant editorial changes to the technical report since the previous Candidate Recommendation Snapshot ,
- should document outstanding issues, and parts of the document on which the Working Group does not have consensus,
- should report which, if any, of the Working Group’s requirements for this document have changed since the previous step,
- should report any changes in dependencies with other groups.
Note: A Working Group does not need to meet the requirements of a Candidate Recommendation Snapshot update request in order to publish a Candidate Recommendation Draft .
Possible next steps after a Candidate Recommendation Draft :
- Return to Working Draft
- A revised Candidate Recommendation Snapshot
- A revised Candidate Recommendation Draft
- Proposed Recommendation , if there are no substantive change other than dropping at risk features
-
Working Group NoteDiscontinued Draft
6.2.9. Transitioning to Proposed Recommendation
In addition to meeting the requirements for advancement ,
- The status information must specify the deadline for Advisory Committee review , which must be at least 28 days after the publication of the Proposed Recommendation and should be at least 10 days after the end of the last Exclusion Opportunity per ”Exclusion From W3C RF Licensing Requirements” in the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] .
A
Working
Group,
or
for
a
proposed
Amended
Recommendation
,
the
W3C:
Group:
- must show adequate implementation experience except where an exception is approved by the Director ,
- must show that the document has received wide review ,
- must show that all issues raised during the Candidate Recommendation review period other than by Advisory Committee representatives acting in their formal AC representative role have been formally addressed ,
- must identify any substantive issues raised since the close of the Candidate Recommendation review period,
- must not have made any substantive changes to the document since the most recent Candidate Recommendation Snapshot , other than dropping features identified at risk .
- may have removed features identified in the Candidate Recommendation Snapshot document as at risk without republishing the specification as a Candidate Recommendation Snapshot .
The Director:
- must announce the publication of a Proposed Recommendation to the Advisory Committee , and must begin an Advisory Committee Review on the question of whether the specification is appropriate to publish as a W3C Recommendation .
- may approve a Proposed Recommendation with minimal implementation experience where there is a compelling reason to do so. In such a case, the Director should explain the reasons for that decision.
Since a W3C Recommendation must not include any substantive changes from the Proposed Recommendation it is based on, to make any substantive change to a Proposed Recommendation the Working Group must return the specification to Candidate Recommendation or Working Draft .
A Proposed Recommendation may identify itself as intending to allow new features ( class 4 changes ) after its initial publication as a Recommendation , as described in § 6.2.11.4 Revising a Recommendation: New Features . Such an allowance cannot be added to a technical report previously published as a Recommendation that did not allow such changes.
Possible Next Steps:
- Return to Working Draft
- Return to Candidate Recommendation
-
Recommendation
status
,
including Amended Recommendation(the expected next step). -
Working Group NoteDiscontinued Draft
Advisory Committee representatives may initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal of the decision to advance the technical report.
6.2.10. Transitioning to W3C Recommendation
The decision to advance a document to Recommendation is a W3C Decision .
In addition to meeting the requirements for advancement ,
- A Recommendation must identify where errata are tracked, and
- A Recommendation must not include any substantive changes from the Proposed Recommendation on which it is based.
- If there was any dissent in Advisory Committee reviews, the Director must publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C and the general public, and must formally address the comment at least 14 days before publication as a W3C Recommendation .
- Advisory Committee representatives may initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal of the W3C decision
-
The
DirectorTeam must announce the publication of a W3C Recommendation to Advisory Committee , other W3C groups and to the public.
Possible next steps: A W3C Recommendation normally retains its status indefinitely. However it may be:
-
republished
as
a
revised
Recommendation
or Amended Recommendation, or -
republished
as
a
Candidate
Recommendation
to
be
developed
towards
a
revised
Recommendation or AmendedRecommendation , or - declared superseded or obsolete , or
- rescinded .
6.2.11. Revising a W3C Recommendation
This section details the process for making changes to a Recommendation .
6.2.11.1. Revising a Recommendation: Markup Changes
A
Working
group
may
request
republication
of
a
Recommendation
,
or
if
there
is
no
Working
Group
chartered
to
maintain
a
Recommendation
W3C
may
republish
the
Recommendation
,
to
make
corrections
that
do
not
result
in
any
changes
to
the
text
of
the
specification.
(See
class
1
changes
.)
If there is no Working Group chartered to maintain a Recommendation , the Team may republish the Recommendation with such changes incorporated.
6.2.11.2. Revising a Recommendation: Editorial Changes
Editorial
changes
to
a
Recommendation
require
no
technical
review
of
the
intended
changes.
A
Working
Group
,
provided
there
are
no
votes
against
the
resolution
decision
to
publish,
may
request
publication
of
a
Recommendation
or
W3C
may
publish
a
Recommendation
to
make
this
class
of
change
without
passing
through
earlier
maturity
levels.
(See
class
2
changes
.)
If there is no Working Group chartered to maintain a Recommendation , the Team may republish the Recommendation with such changes incorporated, including errata and Team corrections .
6.2.11.3. Revising a Recommendation: Substantive Changes
A
candidate
correction
can
be
made
normative
and
be
folded
into
the
main
text
of
the
Recommendation
,
once
it
has
satisfied
all
the
same
criteria
as
the
rest
of
the
Recommendation
,
including
review
by
the
community
to
ensure
the
technical
and
editorial
soundness
of
the
candidate
change
amendments
.
To
validate
this,
the
Working
Group
must
request
a
Last
Call
for
Review
of
Proposed
Changes
Amendments
,
followed
by
an
update
request
.
See
§ 6.2.11.5
Incorporating
Candidate
Changes
Amendments
.
Alternatively,
a
Working
Group
may
incorporate
the
changes
and
publish
as
a
Candidate
Recommendation
,
or
if
and
advance
the
specification
from
that
state.
(See
class
3
changes
.)
Note:
If
there
is
no
Working
Group
is
chartered
to
maintain
a
Recommendation
W3C
may
publish
a
candidate
Amended
Recommendation
,
and
advance
the
specification
from
that
state.
If
the
publication
was
requested
by
the
W3C
team
Team
in
the
absence
of
a
Working
Group
,
cannot
make
substantive
changes
and
republish
the
resulting
Recommendation
will
be
called
an
Amended
Recommendation
.
(See
class
3
It
can,
however,
informatively
highlight
problems
and
desirable
changes
.)
using
errata
and
candidate
corrections
and
republish
as
described
in
the
previous
section
.
6.2.11.4. Revising a Recommendation: New Features
New
features
(see
class
4
changes
)
may
be
incorporated
into
a
Recommendation
explicitly
identified
as
allowing
new
features
using
candidate
additions
.
A
candidate
addition
can
be
made
normative
and
be
folded
into
the
main
text
of
the
Recommendation
,
once
it
has
satisfied
all
using
the
same
criteria
process
as
the
rest
of
the
Recommendation
,
including
review
by
the
community
to
ensure
the
technical
and
editorial
soundness
of
the
candidate
change
.
To
validate
this,
the
Working
Group
must
request
a
Last
Call
for
Review
of
Proposed
Changes
candidate
amendments
,
followed
by
an
update
request
.
See
§ 6.2.11.5
Incorporating
Candidate
as
detailed
in
§ 6.2.11.3
Revising
a
Recommendation:
Substantive
Changes
.
Note: This prohibition against new features unless explicitly allowed enables third parties to depend on Recommendations having a stable feature-set, as they have prior to the 2020 revision of this Process.
To make changes which introduce a new feature to a Recommendation that was not approved for accepting new features, W3C must create a new technical report , following the full process of advancing a technical report to Recommendation beginning with a new First Public Working Draft .
6.2.11.5.
Incorporating
Candidate
Changes
Amendments
A
Last
Call
for
Review
of
Proposed
Changes
Amendments
verifies
acceptance
by
the
W3C
community
of
candidate
changes
amendments
by
combining
an
AC
Review
with
a
patent
exclusion
opportunity.
The
Last
Call
for
Review
of
Proposed
Changes
Amendments
must
be
announced
to
other
W3C
groups,
the
public,
and
the
Advisory
Committee
.
The
announcement
must
:
- Identify whether this is a Last Call for Review of Proposed Corrections , Last Call for Review of Proposed Additions , or Last Call for Review of Proposed Corrections and Additions .
-
Identify
the
specific
candidate
changesamendments under review as proposedchangesamendments ( proposed corrections / proposedadditionadditions ). - Specify the deadline for review comments, which must not be any sooner than 60 days from the Call for Review.
- Solicit review and, if it does not already have it, implementation experience.
The
combination
of
the
existing
Recommendation
with
the
proposed
changes
amendments
included
in
the
Last
Call
for
Review
of
Proposed
Changes
Amendments
is
considered
a
Patent
Review
Draft
for
the
purposes
of
the
Patent
Policy
[PATENT-POLICY]
.
Also,
the
review
initiated
by
the
Last
Call
for
Review
of
Proposed
Additions
Amendments
is
an
Advisory
Committee
Review
.
Note: Last Call for Review of Proposed Additions and Last Call for Review of Proposed Corrections and Additions can only be issued for Recommendations that allow new features .
A
Working
Group
may
batch
multiple
proposed
changes
amendments
into
a
single
Last
Call
for
Review
of
Proposed
Changes
Amendments
.
To
facilitate
review,
a
Last
Call
for
Review
of
Proposed
Changes
Amendments
on
a
given
specification
should
not
be
issued
more
frequently
than
approximately
once
every
6
months.
At
the
end
of
the
Last
Call
for
Review
of
Proposed
Changes
Amendments
,
the
W3C
Decision
may
either
be
to
reject
the
proposed
change
amendment
,
or
to
clear
the
proposed
change
amendment
for
advancement
as
is,
or
to
return
the
proposal
to
the
Working
Group
with
a
request
to
formally
address
comments
made
on
the
changes
under
review.
If
the
Working
Group
needs
to
amend
a
proposed
change
amendment
in
response
to
review
feedback
it
must
issue
another
Last
Call
for
Review
of
Proposed
Change
Amendments
on
the
revised
change
before
it
can
be
incorporated
into
the
main
text.
Once
all
comments
on
a
proposed
change
amendment
have
been
formally
addressed
,
and
after
the
Working
Group
can
show
adequate
implementation
experience
and
the
fulfillment
of
all
other
requirements
of
Recommendation
text,
it
may
incorporate
the
proposed
change
amendment
into
the
normative
Recommendation
by
issuing
an
update
request
for
publication
of
the
updated
Recommendation
.
To
ensure
adequate
review
of
proposed
change
amendment
combinations,
only
proposed
changes
amendments
included
in
the
most
recent
Last
Call
for
Review
of
Proposed
Changes
Amendments
can
be
incorporated
into
the
normative
Recommendation
text.
(Thus
if
incorporation
of
a
proposed
change
amendment
is
postponed,
it
may
need
to
be
included
in
multiple
Last
Calls
for
Review
of
Proposed
Changes.)
Amendments.)
6.2.12. Retiring Recommendation Track Documents
Work on a technical report may cease at any time. Work should cease if W3C or a Working Group determines that it cannot productively carry the work any further.
6.2.12.1.
Abandoning
an
Unfinished
Technical
Report
Recommendation
Any
Recommendation-track
technical
report
no
longer
intended
to
advance
or
to
be
maintained,
and
that
is
not
being
rescinded,
should
be
published
as
a
Working
Group
Note
.
Discontinued
Draft
,
with
no
substantive
change
compared
to
the
previous
publication.
This
can
happen
if
the
Working
Group
decided
to
abandon
work
on
the
report,
or
the
Director
required
the
Working
Group
to
discontinue
work
on
the
technical
report
before
completion.
If
the
Director
closes
a
Working
Group
is
made
to
close
,
W3C
must
re-
publish
any
unfinished
technical
report
on
the
Recommendation
track
as
Discontinued
Draft
.
Such a document should include in its status section an explanation of why it was discontinued.
A
Working
Group
Notes
may
resume
work
on
such
a
technical
report
within
the
scope
of
its
charter
at
any
time,
by
re-
publishing
it
as
a
Working
Draft
.
6.2.12.2. Rescinding a Candidate Recommendation
The process for rescinding a Candidate Recommendation is the same as for rescinding a Recommendation .
6.2.12.3. Abandoning a W3C Recommendation
It is possible that W3C decides that implementing a particular Recommendation is no longer recommended. There are three designations for such specifications, chosen depending on the advice W3C wishes to give about further use of the specification.
W3C may obsolete a Recommendation , for example if the W3C Community decides that the Recommendation no longer represents best practices, or is not adopted and is not apparently likely to be adopted. An Obsolete Recommendation may be restored to normal Recommendation , for example because despite marking it Obsolete the specification is later more broadly adopted.
W3C
may
declare
a
Recommendation
Superseded
if
a
newer
version
exists
which
the
W3C
recommends
for
new
adoption.
The
process
for
declaring
a
Recommendation
Superseded
is
the
same
as
for
declaring
it
Obsolete,
below;
only
the
name
and
explanation
change.
W3C may rescind a Recommendation if W3C believes there is no reasonable prospect of it being restored for example due to burdensome patent claims that affect implementers and cannot be resolved; see the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] and in particular “W3C Royalty-Free (RF) Licensing Requirements” and “PAG Conclusion”.
W3C only rescinds, supersedes, or obsoletes entire Recommendations. A Recommendation can be both superseded and obsolete. To rescind, supersede, or obsolete some part of a Recommendation, W3C follows the process for modifying a Recommendation .
Note: For the purposes of the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] an Obsolete or Superseded Recommendation has the status of an active Recommendation , although it is not recommended for future implementation; a Rescinded Recommendation ceases to be in effect and no new licenses are granted under the Patent Policy.
6.2.12.4. Process for Rescinding, Obsoleting, Superseding, Restoring a Recommendation
The process of rescinding, obsoleting, superseding, or restoring a Recommendation can be initiated either by a request from the Director or via a request from any of the following:
- The Working Group who produced, or is chartered to maintain, the Recommendation
- The TAG , if there is no such Working Group
- Any individual who made a request to the relevant Working Group as described above, or the TAG if such a group does not exist, to obsolete, rescind, supersede, or restore a Recommendation , where the request was not answered within 90 days
- 5% of the members of the Advisory Committee
The
Director
Team
must
then
submit
the
request
to
the
Advisory
Committee
for
review.
For
any
Advisory
Committee
review
of
a
proposal
to
rescind,
obsolete,
supersede,
or
restore
a
Recommendation
the
Director
must
:
- announce the proposal to all Working Group Chairs , and to the Public, as well as to the Advisory Committee
- indicate that this is a proposal to Rescind, Obsolete, Supersede, or restore, a Recommendation as appropriate
- identify the Recommendation by URL
- publish a rationale for the proposal
- identify known dependencies and solicit review from all dependent Working Groups
- solicit public review
-
specify
the
deadline
for
review
comments,
which
must
be
at
least
28
days
after
the
Director 'sannouncement
and should
- identify known implementations.
If there was any dissent in the Advisory Committee review , the Director must publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C and the public , and must formally address the dissent at least 14 days before publication as an Obsolete or Rescinded Recommendation .
The Advisory Committee may initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal of the Director 's decision.
W3C must publish an Obsolete or Rescinded Recommendation with up to date status. The updated version may remove the main body of the document. The Status of this Document section should link to the explanation of Obsoleting and Rescinding W3C Specifications [OBS-RESC] as appropriate.
Once W3C has published a Rescinded Recommendation, future W3C technical reports must not include normative references to that technical report.
Note: W3C strives to ensure that all Technical Reports will continue to be available at their version-specific URL.
6.3.
Working
Group
The
Note
Track:
Notes
and
Interest
Statements
6.3.1. Group Notes
A
Working
Group
Note
or
Interest
Group
Note
(
NOTE
)
is
published
by
a
chartered
Working
Group
or
Interest
Group
to
provide
a
stable
reference
for
a
useful
document
that
is
not
intended
to
be
a
formal
standard,
or
to
document
work
that
was
abandoned
without
producing
a
Recommendation
.
standard.
Working
Groups
and
,
Interest
Groups
,
the
TAG
and
the
AB
may
publish
work
as
W3C
Notes
.
Examples
include:
-
supporting
documentation
for
a
specification,
such
as
explanations
of
design
principles
or
use
cases
and
requirements,requirements -
non-normative
guides
to
good
practices, specifications where work has been stopped and there is no longer consensus for making them a new standard.practices
Some
W3C
Notes
are
developed
through
successive
Working
Drafts
,
with
an
expectation
that
they
will
become
Draft
Notes
before
publication
as
a
full
Notes
,
while
others
are
simply
published
directly
as
a
Note
.
There
are
few
formal
requirements
to
publish
a
document
as
a
W3C
Note
or
Draft
Note
,
and
they
have
no
standing
as
a
recommendation
of
W3C
but
are
simply
documents
preserved
for
historical
reference.
Note: The W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] does not apply any licensing requirements or commitments for Notes or Draft Notes .
6.3.2. Publishing Notes
In
order
to
publish
a
Note
,
a
Working
Group
or
Interest
Group
:
Draft
Note
,
the
group:
-
may publish a Note with or without its prior publication as a Working Draft .must recordthe group’stheir decision to request publication as a Note or Draft Note , and - should publish documentation of significant changes to the technical report since any previous publication.
Possible
next
steps:
End
state:
Both
Notes
and
Draft
Notes
can
be
updated
by
republishing
as
a
Note
or
Draft
Note
.
A
technical
report
may
remain
a
Working
or
Interest
Group
Note
indefinitely
indefinitely.
If a Note produced by a chartered group is no longer in scope for any group, the Team may republish the Note with class 1 changes incorporated, as well as with errata and Team corrections annotated.
6.3.3. Elevating Group Notes to W3C Statement status
A W3C Statement is a Note that has been endorsed by W3C as a whole. In order to elevate a Note to W3C Statement status, A group must :
- show that the document has received wide review .
- record the group’s decision to request publication as a W3C Statement .
- show that all issues raised against the document since its first publication as a Note have been formally addressed .
- provide public documentation of any Formal Objections .
A
Working
Group
Note
specifying
implementable
technology
should
not
be
elevated
to
W3C
Statement
status;
if
it
does,
the
request
to
publish
as
a
Statement
may
must
resume
work
include
rationale
for
why
it
should
be
elevated,
and
why
it
is
not
on
the
Recommendation
track
.
Once
these
conditions
are
fulfilled,
the
Team
must
then
begin
an
Advisory
Committee
Review
on
the
question
of
whether
the
document
is
appropriate
to
publish
as
a
technical
report
within
W3C
Statement
.
During
this
review
period,
the
scope
Note
must
not
be
updated.
The
decision
to
advance
a
document
to
W3C
Statement
is
a
W3C
Decision
.
Advisory
Committee
representatives
may
initiate
an
Advisory
Committee
Appeal
of
its
charter
at
any
time,
at
the
maturity
level
decision.
The
Team
must
announce
the
specification
had
before
publication
of
a
W3C
Statement
to
the
Advisory
Committee
,
other
W3C
groups,
and
the
public.
6.3.4. Revising W3C Statements
Given
a
recorded
group
decision
to
do
so,
groups
can
request
publication
of
a
W3C
Statement
with
editorial
changes
—
A
candidate
amendment
can
be
folded
into
the
main
text
of
the
W3C
Statement
,
once
it
has
satisfied
all
the
same
criteria
as
the
rest
of
the
Statement
,
including
review
by
the
community
to
ensure
the
substantive
and
editorial
soundness
of
the
candidate
amendments
.
To
validate
this,
the
group
must
request
an
Advisory
Committee
review
of
the
changes
it
wishes
to
incorporate.
The
specific
candidate
amendments
under
review
must
be
identified
as
proposed
amendments
just
as
in
a
Note
Last
Call
for
Review
of
Proposed
Corrections
.
The decision to incorporate proposed amendments into W3C Statement is a W3C Decision . Advisory Committee representatives may initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal of the decision.
6.4. The Registry Track
A registry documents a data set consisting of one or more associated registry tables , each table representing an updatable collection of logically independent, consistently-structured registry entries . A registry has three associated components:
- the registry definition , defining how the registry tables are structured and maintained
- one or more registry tables , holding the data set represented by the registry (the registry data )
- one or more referencing specifications, which make use of the registry
The purposes of maintaining a registry can include:
- non-collision
- Avoiding the problem of two entities using the same value with different semantics.
- non-duplication
- Avoiding the problem of having two or more different values in use with the same semantics.
- information
- Providing a central index where anyone can find out what a value means and what its formal definition is (and where it is).
- submission
- Ease of adding new terms, including by stakeholders external to the custodian organization.
- consensus
- Promoting a clear consensus of the community on the terms.
This section of the W3C Process provides a specialized process facilitating the publication and maintenance of such registry tables , particularly those required by or closely related to W3C Recommendations .
Note: Not every table in a specification is a potential registry. If the intent or effect is that the table enumerates all the possibilities the authors of the specification expect or envisage, then the table by itself is enough. Similarly, if the table is managed by the Working Group and only updated as part of specification update, then the complexities of registry management are not needed.
6.4.1. Registry Definitions
A registry definition defines what each registry table is and how it is maintained. It must :
- Define the scope and purpose of each registry table .
- Define the fields of each registry table and their constraints (e.g. values must be drawn from a defined set, or be unique, or only reference publicly available resources, etc.)
-
Define
the
policy
for
changes
to
existing
entries,
such
as
- whether entries can be deleted or deprecated
- whether entries can be changed after being published, and what kinds of changes are allowed
- whether previously-deleted unique identifiers can be re-used, or are reserved indefinitely
- Define the method and criteria by which changes are proposed, approved, and incorporated. (For example, a registry could define that changes to registry entries can be proposed using a particular web form or email address, that they must be accompanied by certain background information, or that they do or do not need to be approved by any member of a particular Working Group.)
-
Identify
the
custodian
of
the
registry
table
:
the
entity
to
which
requests
for
registry
changes
must
be
sent,
and
which
is
responsible
for
evaluating
whether
such
requests
satisfy
the
criteria
defined
in
the
registry
definition
.
The custodian may be the Working Group , the Team , or a delegated entity. The custodian for all registry tables in a single registry should generally be the same entity.
6.4.2. Publishing Registries
Registries can be published either as a stand-alone technical report on the Registry Track called a registry report , or incorporated as part of a Recommendation as a registry section .
A
registry
report
or
registry
section
is
purely
documentational,
is
not
subject
to
the
W3C
Patent
Policy,
and
must
not
contain
any
requirements
on
implementations.
For
the
purposes
of
the
Patent
Policy
[PATENT-POLICY]
,
any
registry
section
does
in
a
Recommendation
track
document
is
not
specify
a
normative
portion
of
that
specification.
The registry report or registry section must :
- Clearly label the registry report / section , its tables , and its registry definitions as such, including a link to § 6.4 The Registry Track in this Process.
- Include the registry definition for each of its registry tables .
-
Provide
the
registry
data
by
either:
- Including the entire contents of each registry table , either inline in the report (e.g. formatted as a table, or list, or other appropriate representation), or in a machine-readable file published as part of the technical report , or (preferably) both.
- Linking to one or more standalone Registry Data Reports containing the registry tables in human-readable form, machine-readable form, or (preferably) both.
- Include, if the registry table is provided in a machine-readable file, a definition of the format of that file.
The
Team
must
make
available
a
means
for
interested
parties
to
be
notified
of
any
licensing
updates
to
a
registry
table
.
Note: Since the Process does not impose requirements on changes to the contents of a registry table other than those imposed by the registry definition , acceptance of proposed registry changes on behalf of the custodian and publication of an updated registry report that contains only registry changes since the previous publication can be automated if satisfaction of those rules can be automatically verified.
Rules for publication and advancement on the Registry Track are identical to that of the Recommendation Track with the following exceptions:
-
Registry
reports
are
not
subject
to
the
[PATENT-POLICY]
,
and
therefore
none
of
their
publications
correspond,
to
First
Public
Working
Draft
,
Working
Draft
,
or
commitmentsPatent Review Draft for the purposes of the [PATENT-POLICY] . - For the same reason, there is no equivalent to Rescinded Recommendation nor to Rescinded Candidate Recommendation for Registries .
- The equivalent of Working Draft is called Draft Registry .
- The equivalent of Candidate Recommendation is called Candidate Registry , with Candidate Recommendation Snapshot and Candidate Recommendation Draft corresponding to Candidate Registry Snapshot and Candidate Registry Draft .
- The equivalent of W3C Recommendation is called W3C Registry ; Obsolete Recommendation and Superseded Recommendation correspond to Obsolete Registry and Superseded Registry .
- There is no equivalent to the Proposed Recommendation phase. Instead, an Advisory Committee Review is started upon publication of each Candidate Registry Snapshot .
- Changes that add new features (i.e. class 4 changes ) are allowed in all W3C Registries , without needing the to explicitly indicate that this is allowed.
6.4.3. Updating Registry Tables
Changes
to
the
contents
of
a
registry
table
that
are
in
accordance
with
the
registry
definition
,
(i.e.
Class
5
changes
)
can
be
made
by
re-publishing
the
technical
report
that
contains
the
affected
table,
without
needing
to
satisfy
any
other
requirements
for
the
publication
(not
even
Working
Group
Notes.
consensus,
unless
this
is
required
by
the
registry
definition
).
Such
registry
changes
do
not
trigger
new
Advisory
Committee
Reviews
,
nor
Exclusion
Opportunities,
and
do
not
require
approval
via
an
update
request
,
even
for
technical
reports
at
maturities
where
this
would
normally
be
expected.
Such
publications
can
be
made
even
in
the
absence
of
a
Working
Group
chartered
to
maintain
the
registry
when
the
custodian
is
another
entity.
Note:
The
custodian
is
only
empowered
to
make
registry
changes
.
If
the
Working
Group
establishing
the
registry
wishes
to
empower
the
custodian
to
add
commentary
on
individual
entries,
this
needs
to
be
part
of
the
registry
table’s
defintion.
If
other
changes
are
desired,
they
must
be
requested
of
the
responsible
Working
Group—
Changes to the registry tables made in accordance with candidate or proposed amendments to the registry definition which would not be allowed by the unamended registry definition must be identified as such.
6.4.
6.4.4.
Registry
Data
Reports
When the registry data is published in a separate technical report from its registry definition , that report is called a Registry Data Report . This technical report :
- Must link to the registry definition establishing the registry tables that it contain.
- May contain informative introductory text, examples, and notes about the registry tables and entries that it contains. (Changes to these parts are deemed to be editorial changes ).
Registry Data Reports do not have maturity levels in and of themselves; The maturity level of the registry whose data they record is that of the technical report holding the registry definition .
Anytime a change is made to a registry definition , the Working Group must update and republish any document holding the corresponding registry tables to make it consistent with these changes.
Given a recorded group decision to do so, the Working Group may republish the Registry Data Report to incorporate editorial changes . If there is no Working Group chartered to maintain this registry, the Team may do so instead.
6.4.5. Specifications that Reference Registries
Registries document values, they do not define any architectural or interoperability requirements related to those values. All architectural and interoperability requirements pertaining to registry entries must be contained in the specifications that reference the registry, and are therefore subject to the processes (including approval and intellectual property provisions) applicable to those referencing specifications.
If there are entries that must be implemented, or any other such restrictions, they must be defined or documented in the referencing specification without dependency on the registry.
Basic-Method
as
defined
in
the
registry”
is
not
acceptable;
a
change
to
the
definition
of
the
Basic-Method
in
the
registry
would
then
affect
conformance.
Instead,
the
requirement
must
be
complete
in
the
specification,
directly
or
by
reference
to
another
specification.
For
example
“All
implementations
must
recognize
the
name
Basic-Method
,
and
implement
it
as
defined
by
section
yy
of
IETF
RFC
xxxx”.
(The
Registry
should
nonetheless
contain
Basic-Method
as
an
entry.)
6.5. Switching Tracks
Given a Group decision to do so, Working Groups can republish a technical report on a different track than the one it is on, under the following restrictions:
- A technical report that is or was a W3C Recommendation , W3C Statement , or Patent Review Draft cannot switch tracks.
- A technical report should not switch away from the Recommendation Track without due consideration of the Patent Policy implications and approval of the W3C’s legal counsel if the Working Group envisions a likelihood of returning to it later.
Technical reports that switch tracks start at their new track’s initial maturity level, while retaining any established identity (url, shortname, etc.).
6.6. Further reading
Refer to "How to Organize a Recommendation Track Transition" [TRANSITION] in the Art of Consensus [GUIDE] for practical information about preparing for the reviews and announcements of the various steps, and tips on getting to Recommendation faster [REC-TIPS] . Please see also the Requirements for modification of W3C Technical Reports [REPUBLISHING] .
7. Advisory Committee Reviews, Appeals, and Votes
This section describes how the Advisory Committee reviews proposals from the Director and how Advisory Committee representatives initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal of a W3C decision or Director 's decision. A W3C decision is one where the Director decides, after exercising the role of assessing consensus of the W3C Community after an Advisory Committee review .
7.1. Advisory Committee Reviews
The Advisory Committee reviews:
- new and modified Working and Interest Groups ,
- Proposed Recommendations , Proposals to Obsolete, Rescind, Supersede, or Restore Recommendations , and
- Proposed changes to the W3C process .
7.1.1. Start of a Review Period
Each Advisory Committee review period begins with a Call for Review from the Team to the Advisory Committee . The Call for Review describes the proposal, raises attention to deadlines, estimates when the decision will be available, and includes other practical information. Each Member organization may send one review, which must be returned by its Advisory Committee representative .
The Team must provide two channels for Advisory Committee review comments:
- an archived Team-only channel;
- an archived Member-only channel.
The Call for Review must specify which channel is the default for review comments on that Call.
Reviewers
may
send
information
to
either
or
both
channels.
They
A
reviewer
may
also
share
their
own
reviews
with
other
Members
on
the
Advisory
Committee
discussion
list
.
,
and
may
also
make
it
available
to
the
public.
A Member organization may modify its review during a review period (e.g., in light of comments from other Members).
7.1.2. After the Review Period
After the review period, the Director must announce to the Advisory Committee the level of support for the proposal ( consensus or dissent ). The Director must also indicate whether there were any Formal Objections , with attention to changing confidentiality level . This W3C decision is generally one of the following:
- The proposal is approved, possibly with editorial changes integrated.
-
The
proposal
is
approved,
possibly
with
substantive
changes
integrated.
In
this
case
the
Director’sannouncement must include rationale for the decision to advance the document despite the proposal for a substantive change. - The proposal is returned for additional work, with a request to the initiator to formally address certain issues.
- The proposal is rejected.
This
document
does
not
specify
time
intervals
between
the
end
of
an
Advisory
Committee
review
period
and
the
W3C
decision
.
This
is
to
ensure
that
the
Members
and
Team
have
sufficient
time
to
consider
comments
gathered
during
the
review.
The
Advisory
Committee
should
not
expect
an
announcement
sooner
than
two
weeks
after
the
end
of
a
review
period.
If,
after
three
weeks
,
the
Director
outcome
has
not
announced
the
outcome,
been
announced,
the
Director
should
provide
the
Advisory
Committee
with
an
update.
7.2. Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives
Advisory Committee representatives may appeal certain decisions, though appeals are only expected to occur in extraordinary circumstances.
When a W3C decision is made following an Advisory Committee review , Advisory Committee representatives may initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal . These W3C decisions include those related to group creation and modification, and transitions to new maturity levels for Recommendation Track documents and the Process document.
Advisory Committee representatives may also initiate an appeal for certain Director 's decisions that do not involve an Advisory Committee review . These cases are identified in the sections which describe the requirements for the Director 's decision and include additional (non-reviewed) maturity levels of Recommendation Track documents, group charter extensions and closures, and Memoranda of Understanding .
In all cases, an appeal must be initiated within three weeks of the decision.
An Advisory Committee representative initiates an appeal by sending a request to the Team . The request should say “I appeal this Director’s Decision” and identify the decision. Within one week the Team must announce the appeal process to the Advisory Committee and provide a mechanism for Advisory Committee representatives to respond with a statement of positive support for this appeal. The archive of these statements must be member-only . If, within one week of the Team’s announcement, 5% or more of the Advisory Committee support the appeal request, the Team must organize an appeal vote asking the Advisory Committee “Do you approve of the Director’s Decision?” together with links to the Director 's decision and the appeal support.
The ballot must allow for three possible responses: “Approve”, “Reject”, and “Abstain”, together with Comments.
If the number of votes to reject exceeds the number of votes to approve, the decision is overturned. In that case, there are the following possible next steps:
- The proposal is rejected.
- The proposal is returned for additional work, after which the applicable decision process is re-initiated.
7.3. Advisory Committee Votes
The
Advisory
Committee
votes
in
elections
for
seats
on
the
TAG
or
Advisory
Board
,
and
in
the
event
of
an
Advisory
Committee
Appeal
achieving
the
required
support
to
trigger
an
appeal
vote.
Whenever
the
Advisory
Committee
votes,
each
Member
or
group
of
related
Members
has
one
vote.
In
the
case
of
Advisory
Board
and
TAG
elections
,
“one
vote”
means
“one
vote
per
available
seat”.
8. Workshops and Symposia
The Team organizes Workshops and Symposia to promote early involvement in the development of W3C activities from Members and the public.
The goal of a Workshop is usually either to convene experts and other interested parties for an exchange of ideas about a technology or policy, or to address the pressing concerns of W3C Members. Organizers of the first type of Workshop may solicit position papers for the Workshop program and may use those papers to choose attendees and/or presenters.
The goal of a Symposium is usually to educate interested parties about a particular subject.
The
Call
for
Participation
in
a
Workshop
or
Symposium
may
indicate
participation
requirements
or
limits,
and
expected
deliverables
(e.g.,
reports
and
minutes).
minutes
).
Organization
of
an
event
does
not
guarantee
further
investment
by
W3C
in
a
particular
topic,
but
may
lead
to
proposals
for
new
activities
or
groups.
Workshops and Symposia generally last one to three days. If a Workshop is being organized to address the pressing concerns of Members, the Team must issue the Call for Participation no later than six weeks prior to the Workshop’s scheduled start date. For other Workshops and Symposia, the Team must issue a Call for Participation no later than eight weeks prior to the meeting’s scheduled start date. This helps ensure that speakers and authors have adequate time to prepare position papers and talks.
9. Liaisons
W3C uses the term liaison to refer to coordination of activities with a variety of organizations, through a number of mechanisms ranging from very informal (e.g., an individual from another organization participates in a W3C Working Group, or just follows its work) to mutual membership, to even more formal agreements. Liaisons are not meant to substitute for W3C membership.
All liaisons must be coordinated by the Team due to requirements for public communication; patent, copyright, and other IPR policies; confidentiality agreements; and mutual membership agreements.
The W3C Director may negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding with another organization. For the purposes of the W3C Process a Memorandum of Understanding ( MoU ) is a formal agreement or similar contractual framework between W3C and another party or parties, other than agreements between the Hosts or between Hosts and W3C members for the purposes of membership and agreements related to the ordinary provision of services for the purposes of running W3C, that specifies rights and obligations of each party toward the others. These rights and obligations may include joint deliverables, an agreed share of technical responsibilities with due coordination, and/or considerations for confidentiality and specific IPR. The agreement may be called something other than a “Memorandum of Understanding”, and something called a “Memorandum of Understanding” may not be an MoU for the purposes of the Process.
Before signing the MoU, the Team must inform the Advisory Committee of the intent to sign and make the MoU available for Advisory Committee review ; Advisory Committee representatives may initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal of the decision to sign the MoU . Unless an appeal rejects the proposal to sign an MoU, the Director may sign the MoU on behalf of W3C. A signed Memorandum of Understanding should be made public.
Information about W3C liaisons with other organizations [LIAISON] and the guidelines W3C follows when creating a liaison is available on the Web.
10. Member Submission Process
The Member Submission process allows Members to propose technology or other ideas for consideration by the Team . After review, the Team may make the material available at the W3C Web site. The formal process affords Members a record of their contribution and gives them a mechanism for disclosing the details of the transaction with the Team (including IPR claims). The Team also makes review comments on the Submitted materials available for W3C Members, the public, and the media.
A Member Submission consists of:
- One or more documents developed outside of the W3C process, and
- Information about the documents, provided by the Submitter.
One or more Members (called the Submitter(s) ) may participate in a Member Submission. Only W3C Members may be listed as Submitters .
The Submission process consists of the following steps:
- One of the Submitters sends a request to the Team to acknowledge the Submission request. The Team and Submitter (s) communicate to ensure that the Member Submission is complete.
-
After
Team
review,
the
Director
must
either
acknowledge
or
reject
the
Submission
request.
- If acknowledged , the Team must make the Member Submission available at the public W3C Web site, in addition to Team comments about the Member Submission .
- If rejected , the Submitter (s) may initiate a Submission Appeal to either the TAG or the Advisory Board .
- Documents in a Member Submission are developed outside of the W3C technical report development process (and therefore are not included in the index of W3C technical reports [TR] ).
- The Submission process is not a means by which Members ask for “ratification” of these documents as W3C Recommendations .
- There is no requirement or guarantee that technology which is part of an acknowledged Submission request will receive further consideration by W3C (e.g., by a W3C Working Group ).
Making
a
Member
Submission
available
at
the
W3C
website
Web
site
does
not
imply
endorsement
by
W3C,
including
the
W3C
Team
or
Members.
The
acknowledgment
of
a
Submission
request
does
not
imply
that
any
action
will
be
taken
by
W3C.
It
merely
records
publicly
that
the
Submission
request
has
been
made
by
the
Submitter.
A
Member
Submission
made
available
by
W3C
must
not
be
referred
to
as
“work
in
progress”
of
the
W3C.
The list of acknowledged Member Submissions [SUBMISSION-LIST] is available at the W3C Web site.
10.1. Submitter Rights and Obligations
When more than one Member jointly participates in a Submission request, only one Member formally sends in the request. That Member must copy each of the Advisory Committee representatives of the other participating Members, and each of those Advisory Committee representatives must confirm (by email to the Team) their participation in the Submission request.
At any time prior to acknowledgment, any Submitter may withdraw support for a Submission request (described in " How to send a Submission request " [SUBMISSION-REQ] ). A Submission request is “withdrawn” when no Submitter(s) support it. The Team must not make statements about withdrawn Submission requests.
Prior to acknowledgment, the Submitter (s) must not , under any circumstances , refer to a document as “submitted to the World Wide Web Consortium” or “under consideration by W3C” or any similar phrase either in public or Member communication. The Submitter (s) must not imply in public or Member communication that W3C is working (with the Submitter (s)) on the material in the Member Submission . The Submitter (s) may release the documents in the Member Submission to the public prior to acknowledgment (without reference to the Submission request).
After acknowledgment, the Submitter (s) must not , under any circumstances , imply W3C investment in the Member Submission until, and unless, the material has been adopted as a deliverable of a W3C Working Group .
10.1.1. Scope of Member 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 rather than seek publication through the Member Submission process. The Working Group may incorporate the contributed technology into its deliverables. If the Working Group does not incorporate the technology, it should not publish the contributed documents as Working Group Notes since Working Group Notes represent group output, not input to the group.
On the other hand, while W3C is in the early stages of developing a charter, Members should use the Submission process to build consensus around concrete proposals for new work.
Members should not submit materials covering topics well outside the scope of W3C’s mission [MISSION] .
10.1.2. Information Required in a Submission Request
The Submitter (s) and any other authors of the submitted material must agree that, if the request is acknowledged, the documents in the Member Submission will be subject to the W3C Document License [DOC-LICENSE] and will include a reference to it. The Submitter (s) may hold the copyright for the documents in a Member Submission.
The request must satisfy the Member Submission licensing commitments in “Licensing Commitments in W3C Submissions” in the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] .
The Submitter (s) must include the following information:
- The list of all submitting Members.
- Position statements from all submitting Members (gathered by the Submitter). All position statements must appear in a separate document.
- Complete electronic copies of any documents submitted for consideration (e.g., a technical specification, a position paper, etc.) If the Submission request is acknowledged, these documents will be made available by W3C and therefore must satisfy the Team’s Publication Rules [PUBRULES] . Submitters may hold the copyright for the material contained in these documents, but when made available by W3C, these documents must be subject to the provisions of the W3C Document License [DOC-LICENSE] .
The request must also answer the following questions.
- What proprietary technology is required to implement the areas addressed by the request, and what terms are associated with its use? Again, many answers are possible, but the specific answer will affect the Team’s decision.
-
What
resources,
if
any,
does
the
Submitter
intend
to
make
available
if
theW3C acknowledges the Submission request and takes action on it? - What action would the Submitter like W3C to take if the Submission request is acknowledged?
- What mechanisms are there to make changes to the specification being submitted? This includes, but is not limited to, stating where change control will reside if the request is acknowledged.
For other administrative requirements related to Submission requests, see “ How to send a Submission request ” [MEMBER-SUB] .
10.2. Team Rights and Obligations
Although they are not technical reports, the documents in a Member Submission must fulfil the requirements established by the Team , including the Team’s Publication Rules [PUBRULES] .
The Team sends a validation notice to the Submitter (s) once the Team has reviewed a Submission request and judged it complete and correct.
Prior to a decision to acknowledge or reject the request, the request is Team-only , and the Team must hold it in the strictest confidentiality. In particular, the Team must not comment to the media about the Submission request.
10.3. Acknowledgment of a Submission Request
The
Director
Team
acknowledges
a
Submission
request
by
sending
an
announcement
to
the
Advisory
Committee
.
Though
the
announcement
may
be
made
at
any
time,
the
Submitter
(s)
can
expect
an
announcement
between
four
to
six
weeks
after
the
validation
notice
.
The
Team
must
keep
the
Submitter
(s)
informed
of
when
an
announcement
is
likely
to
be
made.
Once a Submission request has been acknowledged, the Team must :
-
Make
the
Member
Submission
available
at
the
W3C
website.Web site. -
Make
the
Team
comments
about
the
Submission
request
available
at
the
W3C
website.Web site.
If the Submitter (s) wishes to modify a document made available as the result of acknowledgment, the Submitter(s) must start the Submission process from the beginning, even just to correct editorial changes .
10.4. Rejection of a Submission Request, and Submission Appeals
The Director may reject a Submission request for a variety of reasons, including any of the following:
- The ideas expressed in the request overlap in scope with the work of a chartered Working Group, and acknowledgment might jeopardize the progress of the group.
- The IPR statement made by the Submitter (s) is inconsistent with the W3C’s Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY] and in particular the “Licensing Commitments in W3C Submissions”, Document License [DOC-LICENSE] , or other IPR policies.
- The ideas expressed in the request are poor, might harm the Web, or run counter to W3C’s mission [MISSION] .
- The ideas expressed in the request lie well outside the scope of W3C’s mission.
In case of a rejection, the Team must inform the Advisory Committee representative (s) of the Submitter (s). If requested by the Submitter (s), the Team must provide rationale to the Submitter (s) about the rejection. Other than to the Submitter (s), the Team must not make statements about why a Submission request was rejected.
The Advisory Committee representative (s) of the Submitters (s) may initiate a Submission Appeal of the Team’s Decision to the TAG if the reasons are related to Web architecture, or to the Advisory Board if the request is rejected for other reasons. In this case the Team should make available its rationale for the rejection to the appropriate body. The Team will establish a process for such appeals that ensures the appropriate level of confidentiality .
11. Process Evolution
Revision
of
the
W3C
Process
and
related
documents
(see
below)
undergoes
similar
consensus
-building
processes
as
for
technical
reports
,
with
the
Advisory
Board
—
The documents covered by this section are:
-
the W3C Process (this document)
-
the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY]
-
the W3C Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct [CEPC]
-
The W3C Document License [DOC-LICENSE]
The Advisory Board initiates review as follows:
- The Team sends a Call for Review to the Advisory Committee and other W3C groups.
- After comments have been formally addressed and the document possibly modified, the Team seeks endorsement from the Members by initiating an Advisory Committee review . The review period must last at least 28 days .
-
After
the
Advisory
Committee
review
,
following
a
W3C
decision
to
adopt
the
document(s),
the
Team
does
so
and
sends
an
announcement
to
the
Advisory
Committee
.
Advisory
Committee
representatives
may
initiate
an
Advisory
Committee
Appeal
to
theW3C.
Note: As of June 2020, the Patent Policy is developed in the Patents and Standards Interest Group , the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct in the Positive Work Environment Community Group , and the Process in the W3C Process Community Group .
12. Acknowledgments
This section is non-normative.
The editors are grateful to the following people, who as interested individuals and/or with the affiliation(s) listed, have contributed to this proposal for a revised Process: Brian Kardell, Carine Bournez (W3C), Charles McCathie Nevile (ConsenSys), Chris Wilson (Google), David Singer (Apple), Delfí Ramírez, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C), Elika J. Etemad aka fantasai, Fuqiao Xue (W3C), Jeff Jaffe (W3C), Kevin Fleming (Bloomberg), Léonie Watson (The Paciello Group), Michael Champion (Microsoft), Nigel Megitt (BBC), Philippe Le Hégaret (W3C), Ralph Swick (W3C), Samuel Weiler (W3C), Sandro Hawke (W3C), Shawn Lawton Henry, Tantek Çelik (Mozilla), Virginia Fournier (Apple), Wendy Seltzer (W3C), Yves Lafon (W3C).
The editors are sorry for forgetting any names, and grateful to those who have listened patiently to conversations about this document without feeling a need to add more.
The following individuals contributed to the development of earlier versions of the Process: Alex Russell (Google), Andreas Tai (Institut fuer Rundfunktechnik), Andrew Betts (Fastly), Ann Bassetti (The Boeing Company), Anne van Kesteren, Art Barstow (Nokia, unaffiliated), Bede McCall (MITRE), Ben Wilson, Brad Hill (Facebook), Brian Kardell (JQuery), Carine Bournez (W3C), Carl Cargill (Netscape, Sun Microsystems, Adobe), Chris Lilley (W3C), Chris Wilson (Google), Claus von Riegen (SAP AG), Coralie Mercier (W3C), Cullen Jennings (Cisco), Dan Appelquist (Telefonica, Samsung), Dan Connolly (W3C), Daniel Dardailler (W3C), Daniel Glazman (Disruptive Innovations), David Baron (Mozilla), David Fallside (IBM), David Singer (Apple), David Singer (IBM), Delfí Ramírez, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (W3C), Don Brutzman (Web3D), Don Deutsch (Oracle), Eduardo Gutentag (Sun Microsystems), Elika J. Etemad aka fantasai, Florian Rivoal, Fuqiao Xue (W3C), Geoffrey Creighton (Microsoft), Geoffrey Snedden, Giri Mandyam (Qualcomm), Gregg Kellogg, Hadley Beeman, Helene Workman (Apple), Henri Sivonen (Mozilla), Håkon Wium Lie (Opera Software), Ian Hickson (Google), Ian Jacobs (W3C), Ivan Herman (W3C), J Alan Bird (W3C), Jay Kishigami 岸上順一 (NTT), Jean-Charles Verdié (MStar), Jean-François Abramatic (IBM, ILOG, W3C), Jeff Jaffe (W3C), Jim Bell (HP), Jim Miller (W3C), Joe Hall (CDT), John Klensin (MCI), Josh Soref (BlackBerry, unaffiliated), Judy Brewer (W3C), Judy Zhu 朱红儒 (Alibaba), Kari Laihonen (Ericsson), Karl Dubost (Mozilla), Ken Laskey (MITRE), Kevin Fleming (Bloomberg), Klaus Birkenbihl (Fraunhofer Gesellschaft), Larry Masinter (Adobe Systems), Lauren Wood (unaffiliated), Liam Quin (W3C), Léonie Watson (The Paciello Group), Marcos Cáceres (Mozilla), Maria Courtemanche (IBM), Mark Crawford (SAP), Mark Nottingham, Michael Champion (Microsoft), Michael Geldblum (Oracle), Mike West (Google), Mitch Stoltz (EFF), Natasha Rooney (GSMA), Nigel Megitt (BBC), Olle Olsson (SICS), Ora Lassila (Nokia), Paul Cotton (Microsoft), Paul Grosso (Arbortext), Peter Linss, Peter Patel-Schneider, Philippe Le Hégaret (W3C), Qiuling Pan (Huawei), Ralph Swick (W3C), Renato Iannella (IPR Systems), Rigo Wenning (W3C), Rob Sanderson (J Paul Getty Trust), Robin Berjon (W3C), Sally Khudairi (W3C), Sam Ruby (IBM), Sandro Hawke (W3C), Sangwhan Moon (Odd Concepts), Scott Peterson (Google), Steve Holbrook (IBM), Steve Zilles (Adobe Systems) Steven Pemberton (CWI), TV Raman (Google), Tantek Çelik (Mozilla), Terence Eden (Her Majesty’s Government), Thomas Reardon (Microsoft), Tim Berners-Lee (W3C), Tim Krauskopf (Spyglass), Travis Leithead (Microsoft), Virginia Fournier (Apple), Virginie Galindo (Gemalto), Wayne Carr (Intel), Wendy Fong (Hewlett-Packard), Wendy Seltzer (W3C), Yves Lafon (W3C).
13. Changes
This section is non-normative.
Changes
since
the
1
March
2019
15
September
2020
Process
This
document
is
based
on
the
1
March
2019
15
September
2020
Process
.
A
diff
comparing
it
to
the
2020
edition
of
the
Process
is
available.
A
Disposition
of
Comments
,
as
well
as
a
detailed
log
of
all
changes
since
then
are
available.
A
diff
comparing
it
to
the
2019
edition
The
following
is
a
summary
of
the
Process
is
available.
Note
that
due
to
overlapping
changes,
this
diff
may
be
somewhat
difficult
to
review.
In
order
to
make
review
easier,
several
partial
diffs,
grouping
related
changes,
are
available
as
well,
as
detailed
below.
main
differences:
-
Registries
Track
Significant additions and modifications were made to the Recommendation Track. While the meaning -
Introduced
a
new
class
of
the various maturities and associated transition criteria are unchanged, important additionstechnical reports called registries , for documents that describe collections of values or other data that havebeen made to what can be done during CRno normative implementation requirements, yet need specific andREC phases. These aim to facilitate maintenance of specifications,enforceable rules about how they are updated. - Recommendation Track
-
Made
a
small
clarifications
and
minor
simplifications
to
provide a Living Standards capability as a native capability oftheW3CRecommendationTrack.Track:-
Work-in-progress updates to CRs can be published on TR as Candidate Recommendation Drafts . This allowsRetired Amended RECs: this process, which had never been used, allowed theWorking GroupTeam topublishdo update a REC with normative changes in thelatest stateabsence oftheir work anda Working Group, in order toget wide review onmaintain theofficial copy, without having to direct readers to an unofficial Editor’s Draft.document. This ability is now provided through candidate amendments . -
An
simultaneous updateincorrect use ofthe Patent Policy is planned and the Process“Proposed Additions” has beenadjusted to tie into it. Together, they provide patent protection from the CR stage, as opposed to havingcorrected towait fortheRecommendation as needed today.intended “Proposed Changes”. -
Errata and related changes can be informatively annotated inlineSome text in section § 6.2.11.4 Revising aRecommendation, and republished without W3C approval. This too allows the Working Group to publish the latest state of their work and to get wide review on the official copy, without having to direct readers to an unofficial Editor’s Draft, or separate errata documents. Once some of these candidate changesRecommendation: New Featureshave reached sufficient maturity to be part of the Recommendation, and once ithassecured the usual approvals (Director review, AC Review), the Working Group can fold them into the Recommendation asbeen rewritten to reduce redundancy with other sections, with no normativetext, republish the Recommendation directly, without intermediate publication as CR or PR.change. -
Both the addition of new candidate changesCandidate andthe normative incorporation of matureproposedchanges“changes” have been renamed intothe Recommendation can be done incrementally, allowing complex specifications to be gradually improved without having to fix everything before anything can be republished. Similarly to candidate corrections which correct errors,candidateadditionsand proposed amendments . -
Added
an
editorial
clarification
to
a Recommendation can be annotated inline, then made normative when sufficiently mature. Thiswhat islimitedsupposed toRecommendations explicitly identifying themselves as allowing new features, so ashappen toavoid breaking expectationthe status section offeature-set stability on Recommendationsunfinished technical reports thathave already been published without this note. When certain objective criteria are met, bothget abandoned .
-
- Note Track
-
Disentangled
the
CR-to-REC transition andNote Track from theREC-to-REC update can be automatically approvedRecommendation Track, andskip the usual “transition call”. Further developments in tooling may later reduce friction on this “fast-path”. Some minor simplifications have also been made:added a few capabilities:-
DropCreated dedicated status ( Discontinued Draft ) for discontinued REC Track documents, instead of using Notes for that purpose. -
Made
Draft
Note
into
its
own
status,
instead
of
using
REC
Track
Working
Draft
(which,
unlike
Notes,
is
covered
by
the
distinction between RecommendationPatent Policy, andEdited Recommendation.cannot be published by Interest Groups ) for that purpose. -
Don’t require documenting editorial changes since the previous CR. A diff comparing the state before/after these changesAllowed TAGis available. Other Substantive ChangesandClarificationsABA diff comparing the state before/after these changesto publish Notesis available. Retire the “Team Submissions” ( not “Member Submissions”) mechanism, as it is unused, does not provide(for theTeam with abilities it doesn’tTAG, this was alreadyhave, nor provides meaningful governancean allowed practice, against the letter of theTeam’s communications.Process). -
Define that the process to revise the CEPC and Patent PolicyCreated W3C Statements , which are Notes endorsed by thesameW3C asfor revising the Processa whole, through an AC Review . -
Avoid using the specialized term “ publish ” to mean anything otherDefined how technical reports can switch tracks (other thanputting documents on TR.by copy & paste). -
Avoid usingEnabled thespecialized term “ dissent ” in situations thatTeam to donot involve Formal Objections. Phrasing clarificationslimited maintenance on orphaned Notes.
-
-
Governance
and
removalOperations - Allowed AC representatives to designate an alternate .
-
Defined
requirements
for
recording
of
unnecessary text in § 2.5.1 Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Participation Constraintsmeetings , minutes , and§ 7.1.2 After the Review Periodresolutions . -
ClarifyDefined expectations about tooling thatappeal statements are meant tomay bemember-only. Clarify that Working Drafts have some, even if limited, standing. Resolve minor wording conflictused for publication as well as for collaboration in order towhether charters "should" or "may" include formal voting procedures. Delete referencesensure long-lived access tonon existing parts of the Patent policy, previously invoked in the TAG participation section. Remove a spurious link that made it look like AC-Reps were involved when participants in the TAG or AB resign. Add some sub-section headingspublications, and toimprove readabilityenable effective andcross-section linkingequitable participation by anyone. -
ClarifyChanged how therule on vacant seats in § 2.5.2 Advisory BoardAB selects its chair , andTechnical Architecture Group Elections Eliminate the use ofmade sure theundefined “minor changes” term Define and differentiate between Group Decisions and Chair Decisions. Add note clarifying when itCEO isappropriateinvited touse the superseding process, and when not. Add Note aboutAB meetings even if they are not theflexibility of Consensus. Notable Editorial Changeschair. -
Converted the source code of the process to the Bikeshed document format, improving the easeAcknowledged existence ofmaintenance, and gaining better cross linking capabilities as well as an Indexpublic channels for charter comments inthe process. Note that while this makes no change to the text of the process, it is a large change of the source code, and source level diffs are unlikely to be of help to compare the before§ 5.2.2 Working Group andafter state. A diff comparing the state before/after this change is available. Section § 6 W3C Technical ReportInterest Group Charter DevelopmentProcesshas been reorganized, to disentangle definitionsand § 5.2.3 Advisory Committee Review ofthe various maturitiesa Working Group or Interest Group Charter . -
Integrated
language
from
the
steps needed to publish and to transition form one maturity to another. A diff comparing the state before/after this changePatent Policy FAQis available. Noteallowing prior participants of a group thatthis reorganizationwasdone priorjust rechartered and who have not yet formally rejoined tothe major changescontinue tothe Recommendation track mentioned earlier. Final adjustements Based onattend meetings held within acycle45 day window. -
Make
sure
that
normative
references
of
review bytheAdvisory CommitteeProcess with requirements on members are either made through (dated) references to documents that cannot change or must go through formal member approval for updates.
-
Miscellaneous
editorial
tweaks,
clarifications,
and
the broader community of the changes described above, asimplifications -
A
few
final adjustments were made:typos and grammatical oddities have been addressed, and some parts have been rephrased or adjusted in an attempt to simplify or clarify. Notably:-
Clarify the definition of W3C Decision, to make it clear that the Director actually has decision power, and does take the inputThe various parts of thewhole communitydocument that talked about discipline have been consolidated intoaccount. Adjust the wording ofa single section§ 11 Process Evolution to clarify responsibilities.. -
Define the published candidate changesReferences tobe treated as Working Drafts for the purpose of the Patent Policy.“short terms” and “incomplete terms” have been unified to “incomplete terms”. -
Remove statement from introductory text on the REC track about the kindMentions offeedbacktheAC is expected to provide duringDirector which had no material effects on theCR phase.Process have been removed. -
Rename "proposed changes" to "candidate changes", and useReplaced the vague “Other Charter” term"proposed changes" to refer to the subset which is under AC review. Adjust a section title for easier referencing.with “ Exclusion Draft Charter ”. -
Adjust grammar in a list of requirements so that all entries haveRemove stray sentence about thesame subject. Use consistent terminology to refer to Candidate Recommednation Snapshotsa. Fix a typo and use more appropriate vocabulary ("previous" rather than "old")old voting system.
A diff comparing the state before/after these changes is available. -
Changes since earlier versions
Changes
since
earlier
version
versions
of
the
Process
are
detailed
in
the
changes
section
of
the
previous
version
of
the
Process.
References
Normative References
- [CEPC]
- W3C Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct . URL: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/
- [COLLABORATORS-AGREEMENT]
- Invited expert and collaborators agreement . URL: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/collaborators-agreement
- [CONFLICT-POLICY]
- Conflict of Interest Policy for W3C Team Members Engaged in Outside Professional Activities . URL: https://www.w3.org/2000/09/06-conflictpolicy
- [DOC-LICENSE]
- W3C Document License . URL: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents
- [PATENT-POLICY]
-
The
W3C
2020Patent Policy . URL:https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20200915/https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/[PATENT-POLICY-2017] - [PATENT-POLICY-2004]
- The W3C 2004 Patent Policy, Updated 2017 . URL: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20170801/
- [PATENT-POLICY-2020]
- The W3C 2020 Patent Policy . URL: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20200915/
- [PUBRULES]
- Publication Rules . URL: https://www.w3.org/pubrules/
- [RFC2119]
-
S.
Bradner.
Key
words
for
use
in
RFCs
to
Indicate
Requirement
Levels
.
March
1997.
Best
Current
Practice.
URL:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119 - [RFC3797]
-
D.
Eastlake
3rd.
Publicly
Verifiable
Nominations
Committee
(NomCom)
Random
Selection
.
June
2004.
Informational.
URL:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3797https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3797
Informative References
- [AB-HP]
- The Advisory Board home page . URL: https://www.w3.org/2002/ab/
- [AC-MEETING]
- Advisory Committee meetings (Member-only access) . URL: https://www.w3.org/Member/Meeting/
- [BG-CG]
- Community and Business Group Process . URL: https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/
- [CALENDAR]
- Calendar of all scheduled official W3C events . URL: https://www.w3.org/participate/eventscal
- [CHAIR]
- W3C Working/Interest Group Chair . URL: https://www.w3.org/Guide/chair/role.html
- [CHARTER]
- How to Create a Working Group or Interest Group . URL: https://www.w3.org/Guide/process/charter.html
- [CURRENT-AC]
-
Current
Advisory
Committee
representatives
(Member-only
access)
.
URL:
https://www.w3.org/Member/ACList
[DISCIPLINARY-GL] Guidelines for Disciplinary Action . URL: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/discipline - [ELECTION-HOWTO]
- How to Organize an Advisory Board or TAG election . URL: https://www.w3.org/2002/10/election-howto
- [FELLOWS]
- W3C Fellows Program . URL: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Recruitment/Fellows
- [GROUP-MAIL]
- Group mailing lists (Member-only access) . URL: https://www.w3.org/Member/Groups
- [GUIDE]
- The Art of Consensus, a guidebook for W3C Working Group Chairs and other collaborators . URL: https://www.w3.org/Guide/
- [INTRO]
- Process, Patent Policy, Finances, Specs management, Strategic vision (Member-only access) . URL: https://www.w3.org/Member/Intro
- [JOIN]
- How to Join W3C . URL: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/join
- [LIAISON]
- W3C liaisons with other organizations . URL: https://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison
- [MEMBER-AGREEMENT]
- W3C Membership Agreement . URL: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Agreement/Member-Agreement
- [MEMBER-HP]
- Member Web site (Member-only access) . URL: https://www.w3.org/Member/
- [MEMBER-LIST]
- The list of current W3C Members . URL: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List
- [MEMBER-SUB]
- How to send a Submission request . URL: https://www.w3.org/2000/09/submission
- [MISSION]
- The W3C Mission statement . URL: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission
- [OBS-RESC]
- Obsoleting and Rescinding W3C Specifications . URL: https://www.w3.org/2016/11/obsoleting-rescinding/
- [REC-TIPS]
- Tips for Getting to Recommendation Faster . URL: https://www.w3.org/2002/05/rec-tips
- [REPUBLISHING]
- In-place modification of W3C Technical Reports . URL: https://www.w3.org/2003/01/republishing/
- [SUBMISSION-LIST]
- The list of acknowledged Member Submissions . URL: https://www.w3.org/Submission/
- [SUBMISSION-REQ]
- Make or Withdraw a Member Submission Request (Member-only access) . URL: https://www.w3.org/2000/09/submission
- [TAG-CHARTER]
- Technical Architecture Group (TAG) Charter . URL: https://www.w3.org/2004/10/27-tag-charter.html
- [TAG-HP]
- The TAG home page . URL: https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/
- [TEAM-CONTACT]
- Role of the Team Contact . URL: https://www.w3.org/Guide/teamcontact/role.html
- [TR]
- The W3C technical reports index . URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/
- [TRANSITION]
- Organize a Technical Report Transition . URL: https://www.w3.org/Guide/transitions
- [TRANSLATION]
- Translations of W3C technical reports . URL: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Translation/
Index
Terms defined by this specification
-
AB
,
in
§2.3§ 2.3 - AB Note , in § 6.3.1
-
AC
,
in
§2.1§ 2.1 -
AC
Appeal
,
in
§7.2§ 7.2 -
AC
representative
,
in
§2.1§ 2.1 -
AC
Review
,
in
§7.1.1§ 7.1.1 -
adequate
implementation
experience
,
in
§6.2.2§ 6.2.2 -
Adopted
Draft
,
in
§5.2.6§ 5.2.6 -
Advisory
Board
,
in
§2.3§ 2.3 -
Advisory
Committee
,
in
§2.1§ 2.1 -
Advisory
Committee
Appeal
,
in
§7.2§ 7.2 -
Advisory
Committee
representative
,
in
§2.1§ 2.1 -
Advisory
Committee
review
,
in
§7.1.1§ 7.1.1 -
allow
new
features
,
in
§6.2.9§ 6.2.9 -
Amended Recommendationalt AC rep , in§6.2.1§ 2.1.3 - alternate AC representative , in § 2.1.3
- alternate Advisory Committee representative , in § 2.1.3
-
Appeal
,
in
§7.2§ 7.2 -
at
risk
,
in
§6.2.7§ 6.2.7 -
Call
for
Review
,
in
§7.1.1§ 7.1.1 -
candidate
addition
,
in
§6.1.5§ 6.1.5 -
candidate
changeamendment , in§6.1.5§ 6.1.5 -
candidate
correction
,
in
§6.1.5§ 6.1.5 -
Candidate
Recommendation
,
in
§6.2.1§ 6.2.1 -
Candidate
Recommendation
Draft
,
in
§6.2.1§ 6.2.1 -
Candidate
Recommendation
Snapshot
,
in
§6.2.1§ 6.2.1 - Candidate Registry , in § 6.4.2
- Candidate Registry Draft , in § 6.4.2
- Candidate Registry Snapshot , in § 6.4.2
- CEO , in § 2.2
-
Chair
,
in
§5.1§ 5.1 -
Chair
Decision
Appeal
,
in
§3.5§ 3.5 -
Chair Decisionschair decisions , in§3.5§ 3.5 -
charter
,
in
§5.2.6§ 5.2.6 -
charter
extension
,
in
§5.2.5§ 5.2.5 -
Consensus
,
in
§3.3§ 3.3 -
CR
,
in
§6.2.1§ 6.2.1 - custodian , in § 6.4.1
-
Director
,
in
§2.2§ 2.2 - Discontinued Draft , in § 6.2.1
-
Dissent
,
in
§3.3§ 3.3 -
distributed
meeting
,
in
§3.2§ 3.2 - Draft Note , in § 6.3.1
- Draft Registry , in § 6.4.2
-
ED
,
in
§6.2.1§ 6.2.1 -
Editor
Draft
,
in
§6.2.1§ 6.2.1 -
editorial
changeschange , in§6.1.3§ 6.1.3 -
Editor’s
Draft
,
in
§6.2.1§ 6.2.1 -
errata
,
in
§6.1.4§ 6.1.4 -
erratum
,
in
§6.1.4§ 6.1.4 -
Exclusion
Draft
,
in
§5.2.6§ 5.2.6 - Exclusion Draft Charter , in § 5.2.6
-
face-to-face
meeting
,
in
§3.2§ 3.2 -
First
Public
Working
Draft
,
in
§6.2.1§ 6.2.1 -
formally
addressed
,
in
§3.3.3§ 3.3.3 -
Formal
Objection
,
in
§3.3.2§ 3.3.2 - group , in § 3
- group decision , in § 3.5
-
Group
Decision
Appeal
,
in
§3.5§ 3.5 -
Group
DecisionsNote , in§3.5§ 6.3.1 -
Host
institutions
,
in
§2.2§ 2.2 -
Hosts
,
in
§2.2 IG Note , in §6.3§ 2.2 -
Interest
Group
Note
,
in
§6.3§ 6.3.1 -
Interest
Groups
,
in
§5.2§ 5.2 -
Invited
Expert
in
an
Interest
Group
,
in
§5.2.1.4§ 5.2.1.4 -
Invited
Expert
in
a
Working
Group
,
in
§5.2.1.3§ 5.2.1.3 -
Last
Call
for
Review
of
Proposed
Additions
,
in
§6.2.11.5§ 6.2.11.5 -
Last
Call
for
Review
of
Proposed
ChangesAmendments , in§6.2.11.5§ 6.2.11.5 -
Last
Call
for
Review
of
Proposed
Corrections
,
in
§6.2.11.5§ 6.2.11.5 -
Last
Call
for
Review
of
Proposed
Corrections
and
Additions
,
in
§6.2.11.5§ 6.2.11.5 -
liaison
,
in
§9§ 9 -
Member
Consortia
,
in
§2.1.2.1§ 2.1.2.1 -
Member
Consortium
,
in
§2.1.2.1§ 2.1.2.1 -
Member-Only
,
in
§4.1§ 4.2 -
Member
representative
in
an
Interest
Group
,
in
§5.2.1.2§ 5.2.1.2 -
Member
representative
in
a
Working
Group
,
in
§5.2.1.1§ 5.2.1.1 -
Member
Submission
,
in
§10§ 10 -
Memoranda
of
Understanding
,
in
§9§ 9 -
Memorandum
of
Understanding
,
in
§9§ 9 - minutes , in § 3.2.2
-
MoU
,
in
§9§ 9 -
Note
,
in
§6.3§ 6.3.1 -
not
required
,
in
§Unnumbered§ Unnumbered section -
Obsolete
Recommendation
,
in
§6.2.1§ 6.2.1 -
Other CharterObsolete Registry , in§5.2.6§ 6.4.2 - participant , in § 3
-
participants
in
an
Interest
Group
,
in
§5.2.1§ 5.2.1 -
participants
in
a
Working
Group
,
in
§5.2.1§ 5.2.1 -
participate
in
a
Working
Group
as
an
Invited
Expert
,
in
§5.2.1.3§ 5.2.1.3 -
Patent
Review
Drafts
,
in
§6.2§ 6.2 -
PR
,
in
§6.2.1§ 6.2.1 -
primary
affiliation
,
in
§2.5.2§ 2.5.2 -
proposed
additionadditions , in§6.2.11.5§ 6.2.11.5 -
proposed
changesamendments , in§6.2.11.5§ 6.2.11.5 -
proposed
corrections
,
in
§6.2.11.5§ 6.2.11.5 -
Proposed
Recommendation
,
in
§6.2.1§ 6.2.1 -
proxy
,
in
§3.4§ 3.4 -
public
participants
,
in
§5.2.1§ 5.2.1 -
publish
,
in
§6.1§ 6.1 -
REC
,
in
§6.2.1§ 6.2.1 -
Recommendation
,
in
§6.2.1§ 6.2.1 -
Recommendation
Track
,
in
§6.2§ 6.2 - Recommendation-track , in § 6.2
-
REC
Track
,
in
§6.2§ 6.2 - registry , in § 6.4
- registry change , in § 6.1.3
- registry data , in § 6.4
- Registry Data Report , in § 6.4.4
- registry definition , in § 6.4.1
- registry entry , in § 6.4
- registry report , in § 6.4.2
- registry section , in § 6.4.2
- registry table , in § 6.4
- Registry Track , in § 6.4.2
-
Related
Member
,
in
§2.1.2.2§ 2.1.2.2 -
Rescinded
Candidate
Recommendation
,
in
§6.2.1§ 6.2.1 -
Rescinded
Recommendation
,
in
§6.2.1§ 6.2.1 - resolution , in § 3.5
- Statement , in § 6.3.3
-
submitter
,
in
§10§ 10 -
subsidiary
,
in
§2.1.2.2§ 2.1.2.2 -
substantive
changeschange , in§6.1.3§ 6.1.3 -
substitute
,
in
§5.2.1§ 5.2.1 -
Superseded
Recommendation
,
in
§6.2.1§ 6.2.1 - Superseded Registry , in § 6.4.2
-
Symposia
,
in
§8§ 8 -
Symposium
,
in
§8§ 8 -
TAG
,
in
§2.4§ 2.4 - TAG Note , in § 6.3.1
-
Team
,
in
§2.2§ 2.2 -
Team
Contact
,
in
§5.1§ 5.1 - Team correction , in § 6.1.5
- Team Decision , in § 2.2
-
Team-Only
,
in
§4.1§ 4.2 -
Team
representative
in
an
Interest
Group
,
in
§5.2.1.6§ 5.2.1.6 -
Team
representative
in
a
Working
Group
,
in
§5.2.1.5§ 5.2.1.5 - Team’s Decision , in § 2.2
-
Technical
Architecture
Group
,
in
§2.4§ 2.4 -
Technical
Report
,
in
§6.1§ 6.1 -
Transition
Requests
,
in
§6.2.3§ 6.2.3 -
Unanimity
,
in
§3.3§ 3.3 -
Update
Requests
,
in
§6.2.4§ 6.2.4 -
validation
notice
,
in
§10.2§ 10.2 -
W3C
Candidate
Recommendation
,
in
§6.2.1§ 6.2.1 -
W3C
decision
,
in
§7§ 7 -
W3C
Director
,
in
§2.2§ 2.2 -
W3C
Fellows
,
in
§2.2§ 2.2 - W3C Group , in § 3
-
W3C
Note
,
in
§6.3§ 6.3.1 -
W3C
Proposed
Recommendation
,
in
§6.2.1§ 6.2.1 -
W3C
Recommendation
,
in
§6.2.1§ 6.2.1 -
W3C
Recommendation
Track
,
in
§6.2§ 6.2 -
W3C
TeamRegistry , in§2.2§ 6.4.2 -
W3C
Working DraftStatement , in§6.2.1§ 6.3.3 - W3C Team , in § 2.2
-
WDW3C Working Draft , in§6.2.1§ 6.2.1 -
WG NoteWD , in§6.3§ 6.2.1 -
wide
review
,
in
§6.1.2.1§ 6.1.2.1 -
Working
Draft
,
in
§6.2.1§ 6.2.1 -
Working
Group
Note
,
in
§6.3§ 6.3.1 -
Working
Groups
,
in
§5.2§ 5.2 -
Workshops
,
in
§8§ 8