Organize a Technical Report Transition (2023 Process)
About This Document anchor
This resource describes the internal W3C Technical Report publication processes. A companion document provides more information about roles involved in these processes and interactions with the W3C Communications Team.
Steps for transition to an update request for a publication of a publication of an Working Draft Snapshot (intended to update a Recommendation) Draft (with candidate corrections) (with candidate additions) (with proposed corrections) (with proposed additions) (with editorial changes) (incorporating proposed corrections) (incorporating proposed additions) anchor
Once the Process Document requirements for the transition to Working Draft have been satisfied (see section 6.3.5 section 6.3.7 section 6.3.8.1 section 6.3.9 section 6.3.11.5 and section 6.3.4 section 6.3.11.3 section 6.3.11.4 section 6.3.10 or section 6.3.12.4 for restoring a Recommendation section 6.3.12.4 section 6.3.12.4), W3C follows the steps described below to complete the transition. Once the Group determined that the requirements of section 6.3.6 apply, the W3C follows the steps described below to update a Working Draft. Once the Group, or the Maintainer Contact, determined that the requirements of section 6.3.11.2 apply, the W3C follows the steps described below to update a Working Draft. Once the Group determined that the requirements of section 6.3.8.2 have been satisfied, the Working Group follows the steps described below to publish a Working Draft. W3C follows the steps described below for transition to a First Public Working Draft. These steps are grouped by theme. They are not strictly ordered; in practice, some steps are completed in parallel. For instance, groups often manage the transition request/meeting steps in parallel with the publication request steps.
Note: If your specification involves (or updates) an Internet Media Type, before the transition to First Public Working Draft, see also Register an Internet Media Type for a W3C Specification to review the entire Internet Media Type registration process. for information about what you should do several months before advancing to Candidate Recommendation. for information about alerting the W3C liaisons to the IETF so that they may request formal review and approval by the IESG. for information about how the W3C liaisons to the IETF track the registration process.
Note: If your specification defines (or updates) an XPointer Scheme, before the transition to Working Draft, please register the scheme in the W3C XPointer Scheme Registry.
- Negotiation of Review Schedule
-
-
The Chair negotiates the wide review
schedule with the Chairs of groups with dependencies (on chairs@w3.org) before going to
Working Draft.
The Group MUST show that the
specification has received
wide review in order to move to Candidate Recommendation.
The Group MUST show that
all horizontal
*-needs-resolutionissues have been closed by the relevant horizontal group in the horizontal group's tracker in order to publish the Working Draft. The Group MUST show that any horizontal*-needs-resolutionissues have been acknowledged in order to publish the Working Draft. The Group MUST show that the changes have received wide review in order to publish the Working Draft. See the considerations, guidelines and best practices that groups should follow to get early and wide review of a document.
-
The Chair negotiates the wide review
schedule with the Chairs of groups with dependencies (on chairs@w3.org) before going to
Working Draft.
The Group MUST show that the
specification has received
wide review in order to move to Candidate Recommendation.
The Group MUST show that
all horizontal
- Transition request
- Update request
-
- If an individual made a request to the relevant Working Group, or the TAG (using w3ctag/obsoletion) if such a group does not exist, to obsolete or to supersederescind a Recommendation, and the request was not answered within 90 days, the individual should send his request to webreq@w3.org, cc'ing plh@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org.
- At least one week prior to an expected decision from or meeting with the Team, the The Document Contact creates a transition request in w3c/transitions. For the purpose of the automatic publishing system, it's important that the title of the issue ends with the shortname of your specification, thus you will need one single issue for each specification. Note: For the TAG, no First Public Working Draft transition request is required; the request is assumed to be approved by the Team. sends a transition request to the Team: ralph@w3.org, plh@w3.org, cc'ing ylafon@w3.org, w3t-comm@w3.org. An issue is also created in w3c/transitions (for tracking purposes). A public archive of transition requests is available (since October 2019).
- Following an initial review by the Team, the Document Contact MAY be asked to organize a transition meeting with the Team to discuss the request.
- The Project Management Industry or Strategy Lead approve the transition request. The Lead MAY ask the CEO (or someone assigned by the CEO) to take responsibility for approving the transition request. The Team verifies the transition request. Approvals are expected to appear as an issue comment "Transition approved." in w3c/transitions and the label 'Awaiting Publication' will need to be set. In most cases the decision to approve the transition is made on Fridays.
-
- The Document Contact issue an update request in w3c/transitions, if there are substantive changes other than to remove features explicitly identified as at risk.
- if the only substantive changes are to remove features explicitly identified as at risk, there is no need for Team's approval.
- If the update request satisfies the criteria for Streamlined Publication Approval, the Team automatically grants the request without formal review. Automatic approvals are expected to appear as an issue comment "Transition approved automatically." in w3c/transitions and the label 'Awaiting Publication' will be set.
- If the update request does not satisfy the criteria for Streamlined Publication Approval, the Team may approve the request after review. Approvals are expected to appear as an issue comment "Transition approved." in w3c/transitions and the label 'Awaiting Publication' will need to be set. In most cases the decision to approve the transition is made on Fridays.
- Publication Planning
-
- The Document Contact ensures that there is a public archived github repository available for comments.
- The Document Contact prepares the document in accordance with pubrules (use the "Echidna-ready" check).
- If the publication is the result of stopping work on a specification, the Document Contact alerts the Webmaster at webreq@w3.org, optionally cc'ing w3c-archive@w3.org (which has a Member-visible archive).
-
- The Document Contact ensures that there is a public archived place (github or mailing list) available for comments; (for mailing list, the Team Contact uses the mailing list request form).
- If an individual made a request to the relevant Working Group, or the Maintainer Contact, to update a Recommendation, and the request was not answered within 90 days, the individual should create a transition request in w3c/transitions to draw attention.
- The Document Contact ensures that there is a public archived github repository available for comments.
- The Document Contact prepares the document in accordance with pubrules and develops a proposed publication schedule, taking into account possible publishing moratoria. The title page date is chosen based on the anticipated publication schedule.
- Before sending the publication request, the Team Contact SHOULD install the document in its final location. The Document Contact MAY request publication of a document that is not yet installed at its final location, but in this case MUST provide installation instructions to the Webmaster. If a document to be published consists of more than one HTML file (i.e., there are style sheets, schemas, etc.), all materials MUST be made available to the Webmaster from a single directory (which may include subdirectories).
- The Document Contact sends a publication request to the Webmaster at webreq@w3.org, optionally cc'ing w3c-archive@w3.org (which has a Member-visible archive). See below for details about scheduling a publication, and specifically requirements about advance notice to the Webmaster. If the publication is the result of stopping work on a specification, the Document Contact alerts the Webmaster as well.
- Form and Announcement Preparation
- Announcement Preparation
-
- The Document Contact sends a draft transition announcement to the Communications Team at w3t-comm@w3.org, which explains why the document was returned for further work.
- The Team Contact builds a Working Draft review form that the Project Manager reviews for correctness. The Team Contact ensures that there is a mailing list with a Team-only archive available for AC Representative comments; this list is cited from the review form. Note: At the current time, WBS review forms are generated from installed documents, but before the Webmaster completes publication.
- The Document Contact sends a draft transition announcement to the Communications Team at w3t-comm@w3.org. If the publication is the result of returning a document to a Working Group for further work, the announcement explains why the document was returned for further work.
- The Communications Team approves the draft using an issue comment "Draft transition approved" in w3c/transitions
- Publication and Transition Announcement
- Publication and Update Announcement
- Publication
- Transition Announcement
-
- The Webmaster completes publication and notifies the Chair and Team Contact of publication, cc'ing webreq@w3.org and w3t-comm@w3.org.
- The Document Contact publishes the document using the W3C automatic system.
- After coordination with the Communications Team on the transition announcement timing (especially those accompanied by press releases; see more about interactions with the Communications Team), the Webmaster completes publication and notifies the person who sent the request, cc'ing webreq@w3.org and w3t-comm@w3.org. Publication SHOULD precede the transition announcement by only a small amount of time.
- The W3C Communications Team makes an announcement on the W3C home page.
- The W3C Communications Team sends the transition announcement to w3c-ac-members@w3.org and chairs@w3.org.
- Since September 2015, the Communications Team no longer posts homepage news for regular WDs, unless explicitely requested.
- The W3C Communications Team sends the transition announcement to w3c-ac-members@w3.org and chairs@w3.org and on the W3C home page. The Advisory Committee review is started. The Call for Exclusions and the Advisory Committee review are started.
- The W3C Communications Team sends the update announcement to chairs@w3.org and on the W3C home page.
- The Chair or Team Contact(s) SHOULD forward the announcement to the Working Group's public mailing list taking caution not to send any Member-confidential information to a public list.
- The Document Contact SHOULD forward the announcement to the Working Group's public mailing list.
- The Team Contact SHOULD forward the announcement to the appropriate public forum taking caution not to send any Member-confidential information to a public list.
Note: Instructions for publication of an Ordinary Working Draft are included for convenience even though this is not a Recommendation Track transition as defined in the W3C Process.
Note: Working Draft is not a maturity stage defined in the W3C Process but is described as a proposal before the next step.
Transition Requirements for Working Draft
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).
- 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 Working Draft anchor
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
decisionparameter. - 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 Working Draft
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-resolutionissue 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-resolutionissues, 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?
- Is there evidence that additional dependencies related to implementation have 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-resolutionissue pending? How recently were the reviews done? - Was there early review from implementers? Are the changes already deployed in implementations?
- must specify the deadline for further comments,
which must be at least 28 days after publication,
and should be longer for complex documents,
This deadline must appear in the Status of the Document.
- 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.
The list of features at-risk must appear in the Status of the Document, if any.
Requirements for publishing a Working Draft
A Working Group should publish an Update 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.
The Working Group:
- must record the group’s decision to request publication,
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
decisionparameter. - must provide public documentation
of substantive changes to the technical report
since the previous Candidate Recommendation Snapshot,
For example, include a link to a change log where important changes are highlighted.
- should provide public documentation of significant editorial changes to the technical report since the previous Candidate Recommendation Snapshot,
- should document outstanding issues, and parts of the document on which the Working Group does not have consensus,
- 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.
Updating a Working Draft with editorial changes
The Working Group:
- must record the group’s decision to request publication,
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
decisionparameter.
If there is no Working Group, the Maintainer Contact should provide the rational/record for requesting the publication.
Updating a Working Draft with candidate changes
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 Working Group:
- must record the group’s decision to request publication,
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
decisionparameter. - must identify the specific candidate changes under review as
proposed changes, and
Your document contain proper marks/annotations to identify the specific candidate changes, or is providing a list of those candidate changes.
- must not make substantive changes since the previous Recommendation.
Your document can only propose candidate changes but cannot apply those to the normative content at this time. The W3C Team will ensure no substantive changes.
- must specify the deadline for comments,
which must not be any sooner than 60 days
after the publication of the Recommendation, and should be at least 10 days
after the end of the Exclusion
Opportunity started by the publication of the Recommendation.
The publication requirements will ensure about this. No need to indicate anything beyond providing the Status of the Document.
- must only incorporate as is candidate changes proposed in the most
recent Recommendation,
- If incorporation of a candidate change is postponed, it may need to be proposed again in subsequent Recommendation updates.
- If incorporation of a candidate change is rejected as is, the revised candidate change must be proposed again in subsequent Recommendation updates before being incorporated.
- must show adequate implementation experience except where an exception is
approved by the Team,
Were the expectations set at Candidate Recommendation met?
- must show that the document has received wide
review,
Any update since the most Candidate Recommendation Snapshot that would affect past wide reviews? How recently were the reviews done and would the current understanding of the Web change those past reviews?
- must show that all issues
raised during the Candidate Recommendation review period
other than by Advisory Committee representatives acting in their formal
AC representative role
have been formally addressed,
This is similar to the general requirement to formally address all issues.
- must identify any substantive issues
raised since the close of the Candidate Recommendation review period,
Highlight any substantive issues.
- must not have any substantive changes since the most recent Candidate Recommendation Snapshot,
other than dropping features identified at
risk.
Include, for example, a link to a change log. If substantive changes were made, the Working Group must republish the document at an earlier status.
- may have removed features
identified in the Candidate Recommendation Snapshot document as at risk without republishing the specification
as a Candidate Recommendation Snapshot.
The list of features at-risk that have been removed must appear in the Status of the Document, if any.
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.
- must identify where errata are tracked,
Errata are tracked through GitHub nowadays. The link to your errata page must appear in the document heading. This will be checked by our publication rules.
- must not include any substantive changes from the Proposed Recommendation on which it is based.
Include, for example, a link to a change log where most important changes are highlighted. Otherwise, the Working Group must republish the document at an earlier status.
- If there was any dissent in Advisory
Committee reviews,
the Team must publish the substantive content of the dissent
to W3C and the general public,
and must formally address the comment
at least 14 days before publication as a W3C
Recommendation.
- Typically, the Team consults with the group. For substantive issues, especially substantive or serious technical issues the Team Contact should endeavor to understand the reviewer's issues and try to resolve them before sending the Team a request to advance to Recommendation. The request to advance to Recommendation should document the success or failure of these negotiations.
- Provide link(s) to the Advisory Committee reviews, issues where the dissent was made public, and where the comment was addressed.
Requirements for requesting a Working Draft
The request:
- must
record the group's
decision (or the support of the Advisory Committee/TAG) to request
advancement
Provide a link to meeting minutes, github issues, or email announcing the decision).
- must include rationale for the proposal.
- must provide the Document title and URLs of the newer version, if any.
- must identify known dependencies.
- should provide information about known implementations.
- should publish documentation of significant changes to the technical report since any previous publication.
The Team must then submit the request to the Advisory Committee for review.
Transition requirements to Working Draft
The W3C:
- must obtain Team
verification.
Submit a transition request.
- 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.
- 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.
- If there was any dissent in Advisory
Committee reviews,
the Team must publish the substantive content of the dissent
to W3C and the general public,
and must formally address the comment
at least 14 days before publication as a W3C
Recommendation.
- Typically, the Team consults with the group. For substantive issues, especially substantive or serious technical issues the Team Contact should endeavor to understand the reviewer's issues and try to resolve them before sending the Team a request to advance to Recommendation. The request to advance to Recommendation should document the success or failure of these negotiations.
- Provide link(s) to the Advisory Committee reviews, issues where the dissent was made public, and where the comment was addressed.
Transition requestUpdate Request
Tip: When updating an existing Candidate Recommendation, focus your new request on what changed since the previous Candidate Recommendation transition. There is no need to repeat information included in the previous transition.
An First Public Working Draft transitionupdate request MUST include:
- Document title, URIs, and estimated publication date.
- The document Abstract and Status sections, either by reference (e.g., the URL to the document) or direct inclusion.
- A statement whether or not the group considers the document to be a delta specification.
- Fulfill the requirements for the Advancement on the Recommendation Track.
- Fulfill the requesting the Working Draft.
- Fulfill the requirements for the update request.
- Has anything changed on the patent disclosure page since the previous transition? Have there been any incomplete or problematic disclosures?
To submit a transition request, open a new issue in w3c/transitions.
Transition Meeting with the Team
For an Working Draft transition, the CEO, or its delegates, may request a transition meeting attended by:
- The Team contact(s)
- The Maintainer Contact
- The Project Management Lead (or someone appointed by him), who generally chairs the meeting.
- Those delegated by the Team to approve the transition.
- The Team should be invited to attend the meeting if the transition involves contentious issues such as IPR, technical or other concerns.
- The Working Group Chair(s)individual(s)
- Others invited by the Project Management Lead (or whoever is chairing the transition meeting)
- In the event that the specification significantly affects the work of another WG, a (non-Team) representative of that Group should be invited to the call.
The Team Contact is responsible for the execution of the following (under the supervision of the Project Management Lead):
- Scheduling the meeting. To allow chairs of WGs with dependencies and other commenters time to review the treatment of review comments in the disposition of comments document, the transition request MUST be sent a minimum of seven days prior to the transition meeting.
- Reserving a teleconference bridge.
- Choosing a scribe prior to the meeting.
- Ensuring that the meeting record is distributed to the participants. The meeting record (typically a link to an IRC log) must include the decision, and should highlight all recommendations. The meeting record should be sent to all participants attendees, and MUST be cc'ed to w3t-archive@w3.org.
Sample agenda
- Administrative
-
- Is everyone here?
- Confirmation of Chair, Scribe
- Are any changes required to the agenda?
- Review of the transition request
- In particular, review those items highlighted as requiring the Team's attention.
- Review of the horizontal tracker boards
- Ensure that all horizontal
*-needs-resolutionissues are closed by the relevant horizontal review group. - Decision
- The Team assesses whether the W3C Process has been followed and whether there is sufficient consensus to support the transition request. In most cases the decision to make the transition is made during the teleconference. However the decision could take up to two weeks if any difficult issues arise during the meeting. The Team may delegate the W3C decision; see Team processes for TR publications.
- Next steps
-
- If the decision is negative: how do we repair the problem? what happens next? who does what? Note: If documents have been copied to /TR space, please remove them.
- If the decision is positive: how do we announce this decision? when? what is the plan and schedule for any communications opportunities, including Member testimonials? any action items from this meeting?
Some reasons for declining a transition request
- The Team is not satisfied after its verification with how the Working Group fulfilled the requirements for advancement.
- The Working Group has issued a transition request despite a Formal Objection and the Council is not satisfied with the Working Group's rationale.
- The Team is not satisfied with how the individual(s) has addressed issues.
- The Team believes that special entrance criteria have not been satisfied.
-
There are horizontal
*-needs-resolutionissues open in one or more of the horizontal tracker boards.
Per section 6.3.13.4, in some conditions, the Team is required to accept the transition request.
Per section 6.3.3 of the Process, "The Team MUST inform the Advisory Committee and Working Group Chairs when a Working Group's request for a specification to advance in maturity stage is declined and the specification is returned to a Working Group for further work."
Scheduling Publication anchor
Tip: Working Drafts published through the W3C automatic system do not need to get scheduled with the Webmaster and are not subjected to publishing moratoria.
7 days for transition: Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the Team requires a minimum of 7 days period between the transition request and the publication. This allows other Groups or outside individuals to review the transition request and may formally object within this period. While the Team strives to address transitions within this 7 days period, delays due to transition issues or competing Team's priorities are not unheard of and may increase the length of the period needed. Group participants are expected to raise objections within the Group prior to the transition request.
The Webmaster publishes on Tuesdays and Thursdays (cf. the announcement to chairs).
Please send advance notice to webreq@w3.org:
- 3 business days in advance: If you need help from the Webmaster to fix errors, or ask for Pubrules error exception.
- 2 business days in advance: If the document is perfectly ready.
Upcoming publication moratoria are listed below and also available as a Google calendar:
Publication Request anchor
Note: Someone from the W3C management team (usually the Project Management Lead) SHOULD be aware of the status of the document.
A publication request MUST include the following information:
⟶ You may copy the list below and paste into the email sent to webreq@w3.org
- Information:
- Document Title: xxx xxx
- Document URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/yyyy/XX-xxx-yyyymmdd/
- Publication Date: (if document not installed) Month Date Year
- Description: Used in TR/xx/all page (only needed if differ from the 'Abstract' of the document)
- Family: Used in the new TR Page to categorize specifications, configured in GitHub w3c/spec-families repo.
- Description Update: Used in TR/xx/all page (only needed if differ from the 'Abstract' of the document)
- Document tags: (see the list of tags here)
- Document tags update: (see the list of tags here)
- Retired: (only needed when 'yes')
⟶ Indicate if the publication is the result of stopping work on a specification (aka "retired"). - Requirements for shortlinks redirection: (may apply if there are multi levels)
- Approvals:
- Record of approval of the transition request.
- Record of approval of the update request.
- Record of W3M decision to close the group.
- Team's approval state: (approved / not yet / not needed)
- Evidence that publication is in accordance with expectations set by the group charter (e.g., quote the charter).
- Record of approval of the Group.
- Skip CfE for CR text
delete: (only needed when 'yes')
⟶ If there has been a previous Candidate Recommendation, whether the only change is that text has been deleted; If so, W3C can skip the Patent Policy Exclusion (see the Patent Policy FAQ). - Checks:
- Pass Pubrules' check: (yes / need Team's exception)
⟶ Check the document using Pubrules UI.
⟶ How to deal with Pubrules' result:- error: should not contain any `error`, unless it's an exception approved by the Team. This could likely block publication
- warning: Please read through each warning and try to reduce the number of them.
- Comment on Pubrules: (describe the help you need if there's any error)
- Pass Link Checker's check: (yes)
⟶ Check the document using W3C Link Checker.
⟶ How to deal with result of Link Checker:- 404 Not Found: should not contain any `404` link. This could likely block publication.
- 403 Forbidden: Please check manually.
- Broken Fragments: These kind of error could be false alarm, please check manually.
- Status: 301: Please consider using the new link.
- Pass Pubrules' check: (yes / need Team's exception)
It is perfectly appropriate to send a publication while waiting for a Team's approval but does run the risk of not receiving the Team's approval in time. Please coordinate with the Project Management Lead if needed.
If the Webmaster finds errors during the publication process, he will endeavor to publish on the desired date, but he MAY also postpone publication to the next available publication date in order to resolve issues. In general, it will not be necessary to change the title page date of a document that is published a couple of days later than planned. If it becomes apparent that a publication date will be well after a title page date, the Webmaster SHOULD ask the Document Contact to resubmit a revised document with a more current title page date.
When scheduling publication, please note that publishing "blackouts" occur at the end of the calendar year and around certain W3C events such as AC meetings and All-Group meetings. The Communications Team announces these publishing moratoria with approximately six months notice. The announcements are linked from the Chairs' Guidebook.
Publication anchor
In order to ensure publication standards, upon receiving a publication request the Webmaster SHALL make a best effort to verify that the document satisfies the pubrules requirements except for the accessibility requirements of section 7. The Webmaster SHALL publish the document (cf. the Webmaster's guide) if the following conditions have been met:
- The publication request is complete, and
- The document satisfies the pubrules requirements verified by the Webmaster.
In order to ensure publication standards, upon receiving a publication request the Webmaster SHALL make a best effort to verify that the document satisfies the minimum of the pubrules requirements. The Webmaster SHALL publish the document (cf. the Webmaster's guide) if the following conditions have been met:
- The publication request is complete, and
- The document indicates clearly its new status verified by the Webmaster. The updated version may remove the main body of the document.
Otherwise the Webmaster SHALL NOT publish. In this case, the Webmaster SHALL provide details to the person who sent the request about which requirements have not been satisfied.
The Webmaster SHALL NOT publish the document until the date on the title page or later. The Webmaster publishes the document by updating the appropriate technical report index and updating the latest version link, and then announcing publication as described above.
Transition Announcement
An First Public Working Draft transition announcement MUST include the following information:
- That this is a document returning to Working Draft announcement.
- Document title, URIs.
- Instructions for providing feedback.
- Explanation for the document returning to Working Draft for further work.
- Document abstract and status.
The announcement SHOULD provide information about where people can learn about issues raised during the Candidate or Proposed Recommendation review period (e.g., a link to an issues list).
The announcement MAY indicate priority feedback items.
- That this is a Working Draft transition announcement.
- Document title, URIs of the W3C Recommendation.
- Instructions for providing feedback.
- Review end date.
- Link to information about the review; this is the link
to an online review form (WBS) created by the Team Contact. The following information from
the transition request
MUST be available (generally in the
form):
- title, abstract, and status. Note: It is useful to draw the reviewer's attention in the review form to important information, even if some of that information is duplicated in the status section due to pubrules requirements.
- implementation information
- information about changes
- information about obsoleting or superseding previous Recommendations, if applicable. This avoids sending an additional WBS survey just for the purpose of obsoleting/superseding a Recommendation.
- information about wide review
- Information about any Formal Objections.
- Link to a public (home) page for the group that produced the document.
Please use the Team-only transition announcement template as a starting point.
- That this is a Working Draft transition announcement.
- Document title, URIs.
- Instructions for providing feedback.
- A link to the group's transition request.
- Review end date.
- The names of groups with dependencies, explicitly inviting review from them.
- Information about any Formal Objections.
- Whether this publication is the result of returning a document to a working group for further work as a Candidate Recommendation.
- Document abstract and status.
Please use the Team-only transition announcement template as a starting point.
The Candidate Recommendation transition announcement SHOULD provide information about where people can learn about issues raised during the Candidate Recommendation review period (e.g., a link to an issues list).
The Candidate Recommendation transition announcement MAY indicate priority feedback items.
- That this is an Working Draft transition announcement.
- Document title, URIs.
- A paragraph introducing the work, usually the Abstract.
- Indication, in general terms, of level of support of Membership. Note: As a policy, the Team does not announce detailed results (i.e., numbers of reviews) of a Proposed Recommendation review to the Membership or Public, except for information regarding formal objections.
- Information about any Formal Objections.
- Any additional information for companion document(s).
Please use the Team-only transition announcement template as a starting point.
Please use the Team-only transition announcement template as a starting point.
- That this is a First Public Working Draft transition announcement.
- Document title, URIs.
- Instructions for providing feedback.
- A reference to the group's transition request.
Call for Exclusions anchor
The Patent Policy FAQ clarifies when Call for Exclusions are sent out.
The Team sends a Call for Exclusion to participants. The exclusion opportunity lasts 150 days. At approximately 90 days, The Team sends out a reminder with a pointer to the "Patent Review Draft".
If the document was published within 90 days of the First Public Working Draft, it becomes the new Patent Review Draft for the Call for Exclusions started at the time of the First Public Working Draft publication. Exclusions are with respect to the set of features in this new Working Draft.
A Working Group under the W3C Patent Policy publishes a Working Draft. The Team sends the second exclusion opportunity. The exclusion opportunity lasts 60 days. Any exclusions are with respect to new features in the Working Draft added since the exclusion opportunity of the First Public Working Draft.
The Working Group changes the document substantially after Working Draft and published a new Working Draft. The Team sends a new exclusion opportunity. It lasts 60 days. Exclusions are with respect to new features in the specification since the previous exclusion opportunity, i.e., the previous Working Draft.
The Working Group updates the document substantially since the Recommendation and published a Working Draft. The Team sends a exclusion opportunity. It lasts 60 days. Exclusions are with respect to new features in the specification since the previous exclusion opportunity, i.e., the one applying to the previous Recommendation.
The Working Group proposes to update the document substantially since the Recommendation and published a Working Draft with proposed changes. The Team sends a exclusion opportunity. It lasts 60 days. Exclusions are with respect to the proposed changes identified in the specification.