Organize a Technical Report Transition (2023 Process)

Note: The first Candidate Recommendation publication after verification of a transition request is also considered a Candidate Recommendation Snapshot.

Not sure what's your next step? Try our step finder and look at milestones calculator.

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 Candidate Recommendation  anchor

Once the Process Document requirements for the transition to Candidate Recommendation have been satisfied (see section 6.3.7 ), W3C follows the steps described below to complete the transition. 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 Candidate Recommendation Snapshot, see also Register an Internet Media Type for a W3C Specification for information about alerting the W3C liaisons to the IETF so that they may request formal review and approval by the IESG.

Note: If your specification defines (or updates) an XPointer Scheme, before the transition to Candidate Recommendation Snapshot, 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 Candidate Recommendation Snapshot. 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-resolution issues have been closed by the relevant horizontal group in the horizontal group's tracker in order to publish the Candidate Recommendation Snapshot. See the considerations, guidelines and best practices that groups should follow to get early and wide review of a document.
Transition request
  • At least one week prior to an expected decision from or meeting with the Team, the
  • 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 Team verifies the transition request. Approvals are expected to appear as an issue comment "Transition approved." in w3c/transitions . In most cases the decision to approve the transition is made on Fridays.
Publication Planning
  • 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.
Announcement Preparation
  • 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.
Publication and 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.
  • 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 sends the transition announcement to w3c-ac-members@w3.org and 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.

 

Transition Requirements for Candidate Recommendation Snapshot anchor

The Working Group:

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

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

  • 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 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.
  • 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's requirements for this document have changed since the previous step.
  • 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 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?
  • 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?

Transition request anchor

A Candidate Recommendation Snapshot transition request MUST include:

  1. Document title, URIs, and estimated publication date.
  2. The document Abstract and Status sections, either by reference (e.g., the URL to the document) or direct inclusion.
  3. Fulfill the requirements for the Advancement on the Recommendation Track.
  4. 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 anchor

For a Candidate Recommendation Snapshot transition, the CEO, or its delegates, may request a transition meeting attended by:

  • The Team contact(s)
  • 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)
  • 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):

  1. 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.
  2. Reserving a teleconference bridge.
  3. Choosing a scribe prior to the meeting.
  4. 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 anchor

Administrative
  1. Is everyone here?
  2. Confirmation of Chair, Scribe
  3. 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-resolution issues 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
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  • There are horizontal *-needs-resolution issues open in one or more of the horizontal tracker boards.

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

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

  1. 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 Update: Used in TR/xx/all page (only needed if differ from the 'Abstract' of the document)
    • Document tags update: (see the list of tags here)
    • Requirements for shortlinks redirection: (may apply if there are multi levels)
  2. Approvals:
    • Record of approval of the transition request.
    • Team's approval state: (approved / not yet / not needed)
  3. 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).
  4. 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.

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:

  1. The publication request is complete, and
  2. The document satisfies the pubrules requirements verified by the Webmaster.

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 anchor

A Candidate Recommendation Snapshot transition announcement MUST include the following information:

  1. That this is a Candidate Recommendation Snapshot transition announcement.
  2. Document title, URIs.
  3. Instructions for providing feedback.
  4. A link to the group's transition request.
  5. Review end date.
  6. The names of groups with dependencies, explicitly inviting review from them.
  7. Information about any Formal Objections.
  8. Whether this publication is the result of returning a document to a working group for further work as a Candidate Recommendation.
  9. 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.

Call for Exclusions anchor

The Patent Policy FAQ clarifies when Call for Exclusions are sent out.

A Working Group under the W3C Patent Policy publishes a Candidate Recommendation Snapshot. The Team sends the second exclusion opportunity. The exclusion opportunity lasts 60 days. Any exclusions are with respect to new features in the Candidate Recommendation Snapshot added since the exclusion opportunity of the First Public Working Draft.

Related content

Publication Policies

This document lives in GitHub, where changes can be tracked and pull requests are welcome. Feedback and comments are welcome. Please use GitHub issues.