Skip to content

Commit ecbeb82

Browse files
daniel-montalvoplehegar
daniel-montalvo
authored and
plehegar
committed
Add selection process
1 parent 882ce6b commit ecbeb82

2 files changed

Lines changed: 166 additions & 1 deletion

File tree

‎process/pas-transposition-process.md‎

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ W3C was approved as a JTC 1 [Recognized PAS Submitter](https://www.w3.org/2010/0
1313

1414
The scope of our application is "**Core Web Technologies**", defined in our proposal as "any stable core Web technologies produced by W3C that are also in scope of ISO/IEC JTC 1". That establishes the baseline of what we may submit. Tutorials, tests, primers, and other Recommendations of similar types would be out of scope.
1515

16-
A [Selection Process](https://www.w3.org/2010/07/potential-pas.html) (member-only link) for handling PAS was developed and reviewed within W3C. W3C's goal is to submit specifications that help avoid market fragmentation, improve deployment, and facilitate government procurement, and at the same time are stable and widely accepted.
16+
A [Selection Process](./selection-process.html) for handling PAS was developed and reviewed within W3C. W3C's goal is to submit specifications that help avoid market fragmentation, improve deployment, and facilitate government procurement, and at the same time are stable and widely accepted.
1717

1818
## Benefits for the W3C community
1919

‎process/selection-process.md‎

Lines changed: 165 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,165 @@
1+
---
2+
title: Selection Process
3+
toc: true
4+
---
5+
6+
## Introduction
7+
8+
W3C gained [ISO/IEC JTC 1 PAS submitter
9+
status](http://www.w3.org/2010/03/w3c-pas-submission.html) in Oct 2010
10+
(PAS for short in this document), and has since developed a process to
11+
select which of its [150+
12+
Recommendations](https://www.w3.org/TR/?status%5b0%5d=standard) should become
13+
ISO/IEC standards, in which order, and using what sort of packaging.
14+
15+
Our two first PAS (Web Services and WAI/WCAG) were approved "live" by
16+
the W3C AC at its March 2010 plenary meeting, and handled on an ad-hoc
17+
basis in the coming months, together with our initial PAS status
18+
proposal.
19+
20+
With that status in hand and those two packages already taken up, we
21+
need an internal process for handling potential future candidates out of
22+
our long list of Recommendations.
23+
24+
The goal of this document is to:
25+
26+
- present a conceptual framework for this activity
27+
- propose a selection process and associated selection criteria
28+
29+
### Conceptual Framework
30+
31+
There are contexts where having the de-jure standard imprimatur is
32+
likely to increase adoption of W3C specifications. For instance, beyond
33+
the W3C brand, a larger audience may be familiar with the ISO and IEC
34+
brands. Furthermore, there are also contexts where it is mandatory to
35+
use ISO/IEC standards or their national transposition by legislation,
36+
for instance in some government procurement.
37+
38+
W3C also has experience where lack of coordination among standards
39+
bodies results in fragmentation. The PAS process can be seen as a
40+
mechanism for better coordination between different standardization
41+
cultures, all of which seek global interoperability for ICT
42+
technologies, but through different means.
43+
44+
It is therefore our **goal** to maintain an ISO/IEC status allowing our
45+
community to select and send particular W3C Recommendations to become
46+
International Standards (IS), when the need is clearly expressed. The PAS Submitter status is granted first for a two-year period. Then, if renewed, it's extended for subsequent five-year periods.
47+
48+
This activity is managed by the W3C staff, more precisely by the
49+
[Liaisons Task Force](http://www.w3.org/2005/osl), or LiaisonTF, a
50+
subset of the W3C team meeting regularly to track our international
51+
liaisons and whose scope is essentially all non-technical liaisons with
52+
other standard organizations and their committees. The Liaisons TF is
53+
led by the Director of Technical Liaisons of the consortium.
54+
55+
#### Note
56+
57+
Per the JTC 1 PAS process, we requested to be able to submit
58+
specifications that have the scope "Core Web Technologies". That
59+
establishes a baseline of what we may submit: all our RECs, but it is
60+
important to note that the goal of the W3C PAS activity is **not** to
61+
submit all of the eligible W3C REC below to PAS.
62+
63+
Note that we were asked to choose an ICS (ISO category) and picked up
64+
**35.085**, Software, Internet. Also note that our IS numbers will be in
65+
the range **40001 to 40999**.
66+
67+
As the criteria below explain, we intent only to submit specifications
68+
of the highest stability and quality, showing no deployment issue, and
69+
entering this process with a clear need for ISO/IEC de-jure
70+
transposition.
71+
72+
### Process and Selection Criteria
73+
74+
The process should be simple and give the right audience the opportunity
75+
to evaluate the PAS being proposed and apply the criteria described
76+
below. In the spirit of openness, we will accept requests and advises from
77+
everybody.
78+
79+
Given the work involved in writing one of those PAS package, a few weeks
80+
plus a few months of ballot on the JTC 1 side, we still need to be sure
81+
before moving forward with a given new PAS that this is what the
82+
community is interested in transposing into IS at this point in time.
83+
84+
#### Process
85+
86+
1. **Initial** input/request for a new PAS goes to the Liaisons Task
87+
Force, at <team-liaisons@w3.org>. The source can be **anyone**.
88+
2. **Discussions** happen between the various parties involved (WG
89+
chairs, WG, staff, PAS Mentor, JTC1 staff, SC chairs, AB, etc) to
90+
prepare the next steps or abandon the idea.
91+
3. **LiaisonTF** (and technical staff in charge of the technology)
92+
prepares a [PAS note](#note) (analysis of [criteria](#criteria),
93+
outline, timeline, etc) to be sent to **W3M** for
94+
discussion/approval. A first draft of the JTC 1 [PAS Explanatory
95+
Report](http://www.w3.org/2010/03/pas-er.html) [is
96+
created.](http://www.w3.org/2010/03/pas-er.html)
97+
4. **LiaisonTF** notifies **AB** when the ER is ready, and if there is
98+
agreement to move forward, announce the intention to submit to
99+
**ISO** (through JTC 1 PAS mentor) and **AC** (through **Comm**).
100+
5. **Editor**(s) finalizes the [PAS Explanatory
101+
Report](http://www.w3.org/2010/03/pas-er.html), in coordination with
102+
technical staff and the JTC 1 PAS mentor; it's then reviewed by the
103+
LiaisonTF for final OK before sending it to JTC 1.
104+
6. *SENT* to **JTC 1** and **Comm** announces the news to **AC**
105+
7. When/if approved, 5 months later (plus a couple of weeks to get the
106+
ballot started and the final vote results from JTC 1) **Comm**
107+
coordinates with JTC 1 (potential joint press release) and informs
108+
the **public**.
109+
110+
#### Criteria
111+
112+
The primary driver of the technical Web community is **Avoiding
113+
fragmentation over conflicting global ICT standards.** So we need to
114+
look for:
115+
116+
- if it will make a difference in the **Government use** of the
117+
technology, in procurement, vs. local non-interoperable variations of
118+
the specification
119+
- if there is a need for **Promoting the widespread adoption** of our
120+
work e.g. when there is competition with similar technologies and ours
121+
is more open and better architectured for the Web
122+
- if the spec has gained enough **Stability and Acceptance** - we should
123+
not submit contentious specifications. This doesn't mean they should
124+
all be years old.
125+
126+
------------------------------------------------------------------------
127+
128+
## List of potential packages
129+
130+
W3C maintains a list of W3C Recommended technologies and their potential
131+
validity as PAS, on the basis of more technical criteria than the above
132+
high level considerations.
133+
134+
- The starting point is the list of all our
135+
[RECs](https://www.w3.org/TR/?status%5b0%5d=standard)*, minus the REC that are*
136+
test assertions, primer, guidebook, obsoleted, superseded (like HTML
137+
3, or deprecated specs like PICS) or simply not worth PAS, as
138+
indicated by the DL/staff, those that will be superseded soon for
139+
instance.
140+
141+
Our [potential PAS list](http://www.w3.org/2012/04/potential-pas.html)
142+
is currently maintained in Member space.
143+
144+
------------------------------------------------------------------------
145+
146+
### PAS Note
147+
148+
Once a proposal is made to the W3C Liaisons team, a short exec summary
149+
of the PAS being considered needs to be created, it should talk about:
150+
151+
- Origin of the proposal (who, why now)
152+
- Evaluation of the criteria (stability, gov use/need, adoption)
153+
- What specifications should be sent (just one, or a larger package)
154+
- What JTC 1 group should be the target of the ballot (or should it be
155+
sent to JTC 1 directly)
156+
- What IS number in our 40K range to ask for (minus the ones already
157+
taken by WS, WCAG, etc)
158+
- What sort of supporting documents are available with the specs
159+
(implementation reports, tests, tutorials, etc)
160+
- Has any gov funding/resources been used to develop it (grant, expert
161+
gov staff in our WG)
162+
- What other ISO standards are related (in competition or work in
163+
complement with the PAS)
164+
- Timing (AB pres, W3M approval, AC notification, proposal ready,
165+
proposal sent + ballot 5 months)

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)