search

w3c / process

W3C Process Document
https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/
191 stars 129 forks source link

Open up Registries to IG, TAG, AB #902

Open frivoal opened 3 months ago

frivoal commented 3 months ago

Currently, I believe only Working Groups can issue registries. Given that Registries do not contain normative statements and are not subject to the patent policy, I wonder if we could also allow IGs, the AB, and TAG to issue registries as well. I don't really see any reason to restrict them to WGs.

The Process changes to achieve that would be minimal.

For instance, I was wondering if the list of reusable boilerplate text for charters (as discussed in https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/425) could be an AB-maintained repo.

dwsinger commented 3 months ago

I don't see how, as the definition of a registry is confined to a rec and hence WGs. But anyone can then operate a registry.

I don't see repos of useful stuff as being a Registry in the formal sense.

frivoal commented 3 months ago

The registry definition is handled in a way that is similar to a REC, and can be hosted in a REC, but doesn't have to. https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#reg-pub

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.

dwsinger commented 3 months ago

I am sure we decided that Registry Definitions must be in a Technical Report; indeed that seems cited but not stated in the Process.

dwsinger commented 3 months ago

We wanted AC approval of the definition of a Registry

frivoal commented 3 months ago

I don't see how, as the definition of a registry is confined to a rec and hence WGs.

I am sure we decided that Registry Definitions must be in a Technical Report

We wanted AC approval of the definition of a Registry

Yes, the definitions must be in a technical report, and yes the AC does get to approve the definitions of a registry. However this technical report can either be a REC (which get us the requirement for AC review) or use the "registry report" type of technical report, created for that purpose, which has equivalent requirements, including the AC review. Some early iterations of the registry process did not have this alternative, but the one we landed on does. I

So, while we cannot enable groups other than WGs to do Registries-in-a-REC since only WGs can do RECs, we could enable other groups to do Registries-in-a-Registry-Report.

I don't see repos of useful stuff as being a Registry in the formal sense.

It'd be narrower than that: repos of useful stuff, maintained according to pre-defined rules which can only be changed with the approval of the AC.

jyasskin commented 1 month ago

I suspect this isn't needed.

Registries provide an easier way to add things to Recommendations, when full W3C or even Group consensus isn't needed to add a certain class of things. IGs, the TAG, and the AB don't usually publish documents with that level of review, although Statements are now possible. For anything less than a Statement, and especially for TAG and AB documents, I suspect updates to any registry-like list should just get the group's consensus and have the whole document republished as a Note. Boilerplate charter text, in particular, seems like it should get AB review for updates, and not anything lighter-weight.

If a Statement arises in which it'd be useful to have a registry, I'm not opposed to letting it use one, but I feel like that decision should be made knowing the concrete use case.

nigelmegitt commented 1 month ago

I think it'd be reasonable to allow an IG or even a CG to have a role in managing the contents of a Registry Table, if a WG is willing to permit them to, in the Registry Definition. I also would like to know the use case for an IG/TAG/AB defining a Registry.

dwsinger commented 1 month ago
  1. defining a registry. Has to be in a Rec, so we're in WGs.
  2. operating a registry. absolutely, the registry definition can identify any person, group, dog or other domestic or non-domestic competent sentient being as the registry operator.

which one are we talking about?

frivoal commented 1 month ago

@dwsinger I opened this issue about the first one. But go check the process (in particular "registry report" in https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#reg-pub). "has to be in a REC" is an oversimplification. That was a proposal at some point, but what we landed on isn't exactly that, and what we have could work in an IG (or AB, or TAG) if we wanted to.

on the second point, I agree that it's already covered.