Clarify process for proposal adoption.

[barath]

This PR clarifies the process for proposal adoption in the WG per the discussion in the CG today.

[melvincarvalho]

The Working Group will not adopt new proposals until they have matured through the Web Platform Incubator Community Group or another similar incubation phase.

The 'Web Platform Incubator Community Group' emphasizes the term 'incubator'.

Regarding the 'W3C Solid Community Group', I'd like to clarify that it wasn't initiated as an incubator group. Ideally, the WG should have autonomy in maturing specs, with the CG adapting as needed. The revised language captures this sentiment effectively.

[elf-pavlik]

Can we add a link to https://www.w3.org/Guide/standards-track/#criteria , maybe by prefixing the sentence currently in the draft with:

"To ensure that proposals meet the W3C Readiness Criteria, The Working Group will not adopt new proposals until ..."

[woutermont]

@melvincarvalho, every W3C CG has incubation as one of its main goals, i.e., as a free-to-participate social environment or the incubation of ideas towards possible future standardization.

While I don't find the first attempt in this PR too bad, to me it feels more vaguer rather than more clear, when compared to the original wording. I.m.o. it introduces two extra uncertainties:

• The rewrite from 'will not' to 'aims to' now seems to leave in the middle whether proposals should be incubated at all.
• The removal of of the 'similar' qualifier leads to interpretations that just about any organisation can propose 'incubated' drafts.

---

As I have already listed in a comment on the previous PR, there are a number of aspects we definitely want to capture clearly:

• Proposals don't start from scratch in a WG. It accepts them only if their ideas are deemed matured enough to work with. Proposals need an incubation phase. To summarize the guide on Recommandation Track Readiness: proposals to a WG have to identifiy a real-world problem, formulate success criteria for a solution, and propose an initial draft of a solution that has reached a well-socialized level of maturity in a community, i.e., there is general consensus that the specification is likely to be implemented and used on the web.

• The most obvious incubation phase is the CG: a W3G groups specifically tasked with incubation. Whenever the CG agrees they have a mature enough draft, they can propose it to the WG, which can accept or deny it on their own terms.

• Other incubation phases are not excluded. Work from other CGs, or other organized groups of people that work in a democratic and open way similar (problem, solution criteria, maturity, concensus in community ...), can just as well propose work items to the WG, on which the latter can agan decide on its own terms.

---

Just throwing out a sentence combining this:

The Working Group will be open to adopt proposals that fulfill the requirements of W3C Recommendation Track Readiness. In particular, the Working Group will only adopt proposals it deems sufficiently mature, whether proposed through the W3C Solid Community Group or another similar incubation phase.

[oolivo]

I challenge the recommendation that the current text stays as is. Reading the W3C Recommendation Track Readiness Best Practices it is clear that that sentence is used as an example of what one working group does to address incubation concerns, not as a general recommendation of what all WG's should do. It even prefaces this text with:

"The language in the Web Platform WG charter describes one community's practice:"

It's clearly just meant to be an example and not taken as gospel that should not be amended or edited. Furthermore, as Barath mentioned in his original PR, out of 126 existing WG charters, only 3 have language resembling this (including the webplatform charter that is cited). So if we're using the argument of precedents to not amend the text, it's pretty weak.

I'm OK with the proposed PR as is, but will agree that @woutermont provides a recommendation that is a bit more explicit and clear (and provides cited context), and I'm always for more clarity. @barath would you consider incorporating @woutermont's recommendation into this PR?

[barath]

Thank you all for the discussion. I believe a combination of the text proposed in the above discussion is reasonable. I'll make the edit shortly.

[elf-pavlik]

I think Member Submission Process could be also relevant here. Even that it states:

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.

It might be helpful for proposals that didn't have a public incubation phase.

[melvincarvalho]

@melvincarvalho, every W3C CG has incubation as one of its main goals, i.e., as a free-to-participate social environment or the incubation of ideas towards possible future standardization.

Hi @woutermont . You may or may not know this but at the w3c there's traditionally been three levels of group:

CG -- community groups, generally casual in nature, open to all XG -- incubator groups, incubate standards track work, reports or a charter, normally invite only WG -- working group, formal, member only or invited expert, REC track deliverables

Case in point a couple of examples:

From about 2007-2010 we ran the social web incubator group, this produced a Final Report which was one of the inputs to the creation of both Solid and the Social Web Working Group, that came after. After that the SWWG the Social web transitioned to a CG

Similarly up until 2010 there was a WebID XG which transitioned to a CG, which is where much of the work was done for solid, in addition to the Read Write Web CG where things like web access control were developed.

At some point the CG and XG system was made one thing, which is under the umbrella of the CG, right now.

When I started the CG, I was asked if we were going to work on specs, and I said it could be in scope. We appointed two chairs and let the group take it's own course. Before even Inrupt joined we had dozens of members, so that gave a bit more interest for it to be a place where people could gather. The idea of the CG was in the style of a diverse community, definitely allowing casual participation, with a more formal subset of those wanting to work on specs related things, for those that wanted it. So elements of CG and XG emerged over time.

The WG is REC track work, and can be pulled from the various places in solid's history, the Solid CG, the WebID CG, the RW CG, and the stuff inrupt and others have done with the commercial work.

The key thing for solid rn is to get the WG over the line and then Solid hopefully to REC status. Hope that explains the history a bit better.

[woutermont]

If the end result is clarity for more people than before, I'm glad. 🙂 So thanks everyone for the constructive stance.

I also want to thank @melvincarvalho for his historical perspective, which indeed confirms that CG's are an obvious place to do incubation.