search

w3c / process

W3C Process Document
https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/
196 stars 130 forks source link

Rename Acknowledgement to Acceptance (for Member submission requests) #640

Closed frivoal closed 1 year ago

frivoal commented 2 years ago

Acknowledgement sounds like "yes, we got your request", while it intends to mean "yes, we agree to publish your submission". Using the "accept" to mean that seems less confusing.

Preview | Diff

swickr commented 2 years ago

I'm skeptical about this proposed change in language.

The status label for published Submissions should be neutral regarding the content of the Submission. This is why the boilerplate emphasizes "Publication of a Note by W3C indicates no endorsement by W3C, the W3C Team, or any W3C Members. The acknowledgment of a Submission request does not imply that any action will be taken by W3C."

To my ears "accepted" is moving closer to -- or could be inappropriately claimed as -- "we like/support/approve the content". I'm confident there was long discussion of this two decades ago when Process 1999 was explicit about the intended interpretation. That boilerplate as well as any specific prose about the content; e.g. whether it might be brought to the attention of an existing group, whether it is simply published for archival purposes, or whatever is appropriate for each case is appropriately provided in the SoTD.

Perhaps another term might work, but "accepted [for publication]" doesn't do it for me.

dwsinger commented 2 years ago

@swickr ah, got it. Somehow we need to find a better middle ground between "acknowledgement" (usually used to mean 'yes, we received this', without the 'and we agree to publish it') and "acceptance" (which has the implications of support that you indicate and we do not want.) Maybe there is no better word.

nigelmegitt commented 2 years ago

Recognition?

TallTed commented 2 years ago

"Confirmation of submission"?

dwsinger commented 2 years ago

"Confirmation of submission" and "recognition" both seem to suggest only "yes, we got it". Somehow we need to be able to say "yes, we got it, and OK, we'll publish it" without saying or implying "and we endorse/support/agree-with the contents". I'm struggling. The original concern was that "acknowledge" only has the "yes, we got it" without the "yes, we'll publish it"; but "acceptance", as Ralph says, implies including "and we like it" which we explicitly do not wish to say or imply.

TallTed commented 2 years ago

"Accepted for draft publication and review"?

css-meeting-bot commented 2 years ago

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Bikeshedding Acknowledgement of Member Submissions.

The full IRC log of that discussion <fantasai> Subtopic: Bikeshedding Acknowledgement of Member Submissions
<fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/640
<plh> Chair: Elika
<plh> fantasai: Ack is a little of an awkward word
<fantasai> fantasai: here it means "We reviewed your submission and have decided it's appropriate to publish, and will publish it"
<plh> fantasai: I welcome suggestion for in the pull request
jeffjaffe commented 2 years ago

I am sensitive to Ralph's point that "acceptance" is too strong.

I don't think we are fixing any big problem.

I suggest leaving things as they are.

fantasai commented 1 year ago

@swickr @koalie What about changing to “received” rather than “acknowledged”? I'm reviewing the diff and I think this works?

koalie commented 1 year ago

Thanks, @fantasai this works for me!

css-meeting-bot commented 1 year ago

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Rename Acknowledgement to Acceptance (for Member submission requests), and agreed to the following:

The full IRC log of that discussion <fantasai> florian: This is also editorial
<fantasai> ... we are discussing what's the best verb to describe what happens to Member Submissions that are not rejected
<fantasai> ... Member submits, Team looks at it, and they either reject it or --
<fantasai> ... current verb is "acknowledge", we proposed "accept" but that implied approval so wasn't acceptable, current suggestion is "receive"
<fantasai> ... personally I'm fairly neutral, I'm just making the edit
<fantasai> ... "receipt"/"Receiving" seems to be the top candidate so far
<fantasai> ... happy to merge or not
<fantasai> plh: I'm ambivalent about that
<fantasai> florian: Coralie has +1
<fantasai> ... proposed by fantasai
<plh> q?
<fantasai> ... nobody else commented
<fantasai> plh: Any objections to merge 640?
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge 640
<fantasai> plh: I received an email about updating a Member Submission this week
<fantasai> ... don't think the Process is clear about that
<fantasai> florian: I think the Process defines that you can't
<fantasai> plh: With optics of, if Member takes time to send a submission, they should be able to update it
<fantasai> ... redoing whole thing would be overkill for editorial fixes
<fantasai> ... if I was a Member, I wouldn't want to submit if I can't updat
<fantasai> florian: I think you can only submit a new one
<fantasai> joshco: Interesting, if ppl can take their proprietary document and update it, feels like a standard, which it's not
<fantasai> plh: Member Submission was used much more often in early days of Consortium, not something used very often now
nigelmegitt commented 1 year ago
... nobody else commented

Er, I did, at https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/640#pullrequestreview-1307708042 - maybe it wasn't clear, but I was voting against. Having "Receive" implying "received and accepted", and "Reject" implying "received but not wanted" is really confusing.

frivoal commented 1 year ago

Sorry @nigelmegitt merged before seeing your push back. I am reverting now (confirmed with the chairs). We'll talk about it again later.

fantasai commented 1 year ago

@nigelmegitt I think of it like if someone sent a package (in the old days) and you could either accept or reject it. If you rejected, did you really receive it? I think receiving has a bit of connotation about taking it in, it's not just that it landed on your doorstep. And in any case I think it's better than the current "acknowledge" verb we're using. Happy to debate alternatives, but I really don't think the current text is better.

frivoal commented 1 year ago

Since the pull request was landed first, it is marked as merged, but the commit has now been reverted. I'll make a new pull request when/if we agree on what to do.

nigelmegitt commented 1 year ago

@nigelmegitt I think of it like if someone sent a package (in the old days) and you could either accept or reject it. If you rejected, did you really receive it? I think receiving has a bit of connotation about taking it in, it's not just that it landed on your doorstep. And in any case I think it's better than the current "acknowledge" verb we're using. Happy to debate alternatives, but I really don't think the current text is better.

<flippant>Good luck with your courier if you expect them to wait around while you open the package, inspect the contents, and then ask them to take it back again because you aren't happy with it!</flippant>

"Receive" is good for saying "we have it": the problem is lumping acceptance or rejection in with that. They are two separate states. It could be that a small tweak in the wording for how "accept" and "reject" are communicated would resolve this.

frivoal commented 1 year ago

Other potential alternatives:

TallTed commented 1 year ago

Since the pull request was landed first, it is marked as merged, but the commit has now been reverted. I'll make a new pull request when/if we agree on what to do.

It would be best to take the discussion to an issue, for better preservation and ease of future review, and thence to the new PR once action is agreed upon.

frivoal commented 1 year ago

See https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/714 for continuing this discussion