Skip to content

Update proposals-CG-WG.md #12

New issue

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

Sign up for GitHub

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

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Update proposals-CG-WG.md #12

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
3691307
Revert "Update proposals-CG-WG.md "
hlflanagan Jan 13, 2025
aceeee6
Revert "Update proposals-CG-WG.md "
hlflanagan Jan 13, 2025
3f12154
Revert "Update proposals-CG-WG.md "
hlflanagan Jan 13, 2025
f623717
Revert "Update proposals-CG-WG.md (date format)"
hlflanagan Jan 13, 2025
1d7b0f2
Revert "Update proposals-CG-WG.md (date format)"
hlflanagan Jan 13, 2025
d972b27
reverting purely editorial changes
hlflanagan Jan 13, 2025
61448f0
Merge branch 'main' into issue-11
hlflanagan Apr 29, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
16 changes: 8 additions & 8 deletions proposals-CG-WG.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2,8 +2,8 @@

Author: @samuelgoto
Created: 2024-08-11
Last update: 2024-11-26
Status: under review
Last update: 2025-04-29
Status: final

This is a proposal to break proposals into 5 stages of maturity, with clear guidelines and requirements to advance them:

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -38,19 +38,19 @@ The purpose of Stage 1 proposals is to explore the Solution Space and pick a pre

# Stage 2: Formalization

The goal of Stage 2 is to refine the preferred solution into a detailed, cohesive proposal that addresses known issues and integrates feedback from stakeholders. The proposal enters Stage 2 with a list of issues that block advancement to the next stage, and exits with all of the issues resolved. This stage focuses on preparing the proposal for Working Group review by creating a complete, formal draft.
The goal of Stage 2 is to refine the preferred solution into a detailed, cohesive proposal that addresses known issues and integrates feedback from stakeholders. The Proposal enters Stage 2 with a list of blocking issues to advance to the next stage and exits with all of the issues resolved. This stage focuses on preparing the proposal for Working Group review and creating a complete, formal [Draft Report](https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/#deliverables).
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
The goal of Stage 2 is to refine the preferred solution into a detailed, cohesive proposal that addresses known issues and integrates feedback from stakeholders. The Proposal enters Stage 2 with a list of blocking issues to advance to the next stage and exits with all of the issues resolved. This stage focuses on preparing the proposal for Working Group review and creating a complete, formal [Draft Report](https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/#deliverables).
The goal of Stage 2 is to refine the preferred solution into a detailed, cohesive proposal that addresses known issues and integrates feedback from stakeholders. The Proposal enters Stage 2 with a list of issues blocking advance to the next stage and exits with all of the issues resolved. This stage focuses on preparing the proposal for Working Group review and creating a complete, formal [Draft Report](https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/#deliverables).



* What's needed from champions?
* [ ] An [explainer](https://tag.w3.org/explainers/).
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

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

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

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

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

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

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

Often, editorial changes make a significant difference to the comprehensibility of a spec, which makes a difference in reviewing the technical changes. Certainly, editorial changes of the lines impacted by the PR should be allowed, because such in-PR changes are a substantially lighter lift for the reviewer/commenter than a distinct PR — and don't require that the reviewer remember, once the technical PR is merged, that they wanted to make an editorial change.

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

* What's asked of the **Working Group**?
* [ ] Working Group consensus to adopt the proposal as the basis for their work.
* [ ] A clear list of blocking issues to be addressed before advancing to Stage 3.
* [ ] A completed Working Draft for further iteration.
* [ ] A pull request for existing features (or a new Working Draft for new features) for further iteration.
* [ ] Approval to dedicate the WG's time to Review spec PRs to merge the proposal into the [Working Draft](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsWD).


Expand All @@ -64,14 +64,14 @@ The purpose of Stage 3 Proposals is to increase implementation and deployment co
* What's needed from champions?
* [ ] Proposal fully merged into the [Working Draft](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsWD).
* [ ] Web Platform Tests are available.
* [ ] At least two independent implementers and no unresolved objections (where resolution may include an agreement not to address the issue).
* [ ] At least two independent implementers indicating intent to support and no unresolved objections (where resolution may include an agreement not to address the issue).
* What's asked of the **Working Group**?
* [ ] Working Group consensus that the [Working Draft](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsWD) sufficiently resolves all of the issues raised at [Stage 2](#stage-2).
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Since we are modifying this, maybe we should address the issue about not all features within a spec reaching Stage 3 at the same time. Perhaps the CR mentioned below can be a frozen branch from the WD, possibly with features in lesser stages removed?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think that's necessary, though if you feel strongly about it, we'll have to come up with text for both stage 2 and 3, as neither require all features reach the stage at the same time.

* [ ] Working Group consensus to publish the [Working Draft](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsWD) as the Working Group's [Candidate Recommendation](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsCR).

# Stage 4: Publication

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

* What's needed from champions?
* [ ] Documented [implementation experience](https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#implementation-experience) across multiple environments.
Expand All @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ The purpose of Stage 3 Proposals is to increase implementation and deployment co
* \<model\> Repo: [https://github.com/immersive-web/model-element](https://github.com/immersive-web/model-element)
* Depth sensing Repo: [https://github.com/immersive-web/depth-sensing](https://github.com/immersive-web/depth-sensing)
* WebAssembly
* Proposals Repo: [https://github.com/WebAssembly/proposals](https://github.com/WebAssembly/proposals)
* Proposals Repo: [https://github.com/WebAssembly/proposals](https://github.com/WebAssembly/proposals)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
* Proposals Repo: [https://github.com/WebAssembly/proposals](https://github.com/WebAssembly/proposals)
* Proposals Repo: [https://github.com/WebAssembly/proposals](https://github.com/WebAssembly/proposals)

* Examples
* Tail call Repo: [https://github.com/WebAssembly/tail-call](https://github.com/WebAssembly/tail-call)
* GC Repo: [https://github.com/WebAssembly/gc](https://github.com/WebAssembly/gc)
Expand Down