Organize a Technical Report Transition (2023 Process)

Transition Requirements for STATUS

The decision to advance a document to Recommendation is a W3C Decision.

The Working GroupW3C:

• must record the group’sindividual(s) decision to request advancement.

  Provide a link to meeting minutes, github issues, or email announcing the decision.

  For a Recommendation, you may reuse the group's decision to move to Proposed Recommendation.

• must obtain Team verification.

  Submit a transition request.

• must publicly document all new features (class 4 changes) to the technical report since the previous publication.

  Include a link to a change log where new features are highlighted, highlight them in the Status of the Document.

• must not contain new features (class 4 changes) to the technical report since the Recommendation.
• must publicly document if other substantive changes (class 3 changes) have been made, and should document the details of such changes.
  • For example, include a link to a change log where important changes are highlighted.
  • If this specification is a revision of a previous Recommendation, does the document clearly state the relation of this version to the previous one? For instance, does it obsolete or supersede a previous Recommendation? Where is this stated (e.g., the status section)? Does the specification explain whether authors should create content according to the previous or current version? Does the specification explain whether processors should continue to process content according to the previous Recommendation?
  • If there will be two Recommendations of different major revision numbers, does the newer specification explain the relationship?
• 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.
  • Include a link to an issues list, such as GitHub issues, that indicates that the group has been responsive to reviewers who have raised issues since the previous transition. The Team's expectations are that, as a document advances, there will be an increasingly precise record of how it has formally addressed each issue.
  • For changes in the issues list since the previous transition:
    • Highlight issues where the Group has declined to make a change, with rationale. See also Clarification: tables summarizing review, Tim Berners-Lee (Tue, Feb 15 2000).
    • Highlight issues where the Group has not satisfied a reviewer and has either not yet responded to the reviewer, or the reviewer has not yet acknowledged the Group's decision.
    • Show, without highlighting:
      • Issues where the Working Group has accepted a proposed change.
      • Issues where the Working Group has clarified the specification to the satisfaction of the reviewer.
• should formally address all errata raised about the document since the Recommendation.

  Include a link to an issues list, such as GitHub issues, that indicates that errata have been responded.

• must provide public documentation of any Formal Objections.

  Provide link(s) to the objection, attempts to satisfy the reviewer, and a public record of the decision.

• should report which, if any, of the Working Group'sindividual(s) requirements for this document have changed since the previous step.
• should report any changes in dependencies with other groups.
  • In general, documents do not advance to Proposed Recommendation with normative references to other specifications that are considered unstable. See also Normative References Guidelines.
  • Documents must not include normative references to a Rescinded/Obsolete/Superseded Recommendation.
• should provide information about implementations known to the Working Groupindividual(s).

• must provide information about implementations known to the individual(s).

  See implementation experience

• must provide information about implementations known to the Working Groupindividual(s).
  • Unless this information changed since the previous transition, indicate "No change".
  • Include a link to a final implementation report, or, if there is no such report, rationale why the Team should approve the request nonetheless.
  • If you use WPT results, provide a snapshot of those results, e.g wpt.fyi snapshot of webauthn (save a copy of the resulting report)

Requirements for revising a STATUS

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,

  Provide a link to meeting minutes, github issues, or email announcing the decision. The decision may be applicable to one or more revisions.

  This link should be given to the W3C automatic system using the decision parameter.

• 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,

Requirements for updating a STATUS

WARNING: If your existing Recommendation was not approved for accepting new features, you are not allowed to follow these steps. You MUST follow the First Public Working Draft steps instead.

The decision to incorporate proposed amendments in a Recommendation is a W3C Decision.

The Working Group:

The W3C:

• must obtain Team verification, or fulfill the criteria for Streamlined Publication Approval.

  Submit an update request.

• must record the group’s decision to request the update.

  Provide a link to meeting minutes, github issues, or email announcing the decision.

• must show that the changes proposed amendments have received wide review.
  • Was the public requested to review the changes (such as announcement from a previous publication)?
  • Which are the groups with dependencies, per the Group's charter, and did they review the document?
  • Were the horizontal groups given proper opportunities to review subtantive changes? Are there any *-needs-resolution issue pending?
  • Was there early review from implementers? Are the changes already deployed in implementations?
  • Streamlined Publication Approval requires, for each of the W3C Horizontal Groups, 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.

  Proposed amendments can only be incorporated as-is, per section 6.3.11.5.

• Streamlined Publication Approval requires the group to formally address:

  • 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. This implies no pending *-needs-resolution issues, and no pending PAG conclusions.

• must provide public documentation of any Formal Objections.
  • Provide link(s) to the objection, attempts to satisfy the reviewer, and a public record of the decision.
  • Streamlined Publication Approval requires no formal objection have been registered.
• must publicly document of all new features (class 4 changes) to the technical report since the previous publication.

  Include a link to a change log where new features are highlighted, highlight them in the Status of the Document.

• must publicly document if other substantive changes (class 3 changes) have been made, and should document the details of such changes.

  For example, include a link to a change log where important changes are highlighted.

  For Recommendations, other substantive changes must not happen, unless it was a proposed amendment.

• 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,
  • Where are the requirements defined (e.g,. a charter or requirements document)?
  • Are any requirements previously satisfied no longer satisfied? Are any requirements previously unsatisfied now satisfied?
  • Streamlined Publication Approval requires no changes to Working Group requirements.
• should report which, if any, of the Working Group's requirements for this document have changed since the previous step.
  • Streamlined Publication Approval requires no changes to Working Group requirements.
• should report any changes in dependencies with other groups.
• should provide information about implementations known to the Working Group.

• must show that the specification has met all Working Groupindividual(s) requirements, or explain why the requirements have changed or been deferred,
  • Where are the requirements defined (e.g,. a charter or requirements document)?
  • Are any requirements previously satisfied no longer satisfied? Are any requirements previously unsatisfied now satisfied?
• must document changes to dependencies during the development of the specification,
  • Does this specification have any normative references to other specifications that are not yet stable? The Team's expectations are that, as a document advances, there will be an increasingly need for normative referenced materials to be scrutinized. See Normative References Guidelines.
  • Does this specification have any normative references to a Rescinded/Obsolete/Superseded Recommendation? Documents must not include normative references to a Rescinded/Obsolete/Superseded Recommendation.
  • Have other Groups confirmed that dependencies have been satisfied? For example, does the issues list show that these groups are satisfied as a result of their review of the document? Are there dependencies that have not been satisfied?
• must document how adequate implementation experience will be demonstrated,

  This is also known as "CR exit criteria".

  • Are there tests or test suites available that will allow the WG to demonstrate/evaluate that features have been implemented (e.g., a matrix showing how different pieces or classes of software implement different features)? Is the expectation to show two complete implementations (e.g., there are two software instances, each of which conforms) or to show that each feature is implemented twice in some piece of software?
  • What are the Group's plans for showing implementation of optional features? In general, the Team expects mandatory features and optional features that affect interoperability to be handled similarly. Optional features that are truly optional (i.e., that do not affect interoperability) may require less implementability testing.
  • Does the WG have additional implementation experience that will help demonstrate interoperability (e.g., has there been an interoperability day or workshop? Is one planned?)?
• 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.

  If any, the list of features at-risk must appear in the Status of the Document.

• must specify the deadline for comments, which must be at least 28 days after publication, and should be longer for complex documents, and,

  This deadline must appear in the Status of the Document.

• must show that the specification has received wide review.
  • Make sure to look at How to do Wide Review
  • Was the public requested to review the document (such as announcement from a previous publication)?
  • Which are the groups with dependencies, per the Group's charter, and did they review the document?
  • Were the horizontal groups given proper opportunities to review subtantive changes? Are there any *-needs-resolution issue pending? How recently were the reviews done?
  • Was there early review from implementers? Are the changes already deployed in implementations?

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.

  The publication requirements will ensure about this. No need to indicate anything beyond providing the Status of the Document.

• may identify itself as intending to allow new features (class 4 changes) after its initial publication as a Recommendation, as described in section 6.3.11.4 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.

  Unless you don't want to allow new features, the status information must identify as intending to allow new features.