<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html>
<head>
	<title>Process proposal: double-check evolutionary material via a Tentatively Ready status</title>

	<style>
	p {text-align:justify}
	li {text-align:justify}
	blockquote.note
	{
		background-color:#E0E0E0;
		padding-left: 15px;
		padding-right: 15px;
		padding-top: 1px;
		padding-bottom: 1px;
	}
	ins {color:#00A000}
	del {color:#A00000}
	</style>
</head>
<body>

<address align=right>
Document number: P1999R0
<br/>
Audience: EWG, LEWG
<br/>
<br/>
<a href="mailto:ville.voutilainen@gmail.com">Ville Voutilainen</a><br/>
2019-11-25<br/>
</address>
<hr/>
<h1 align=center>Process proposal: double-check evolutionary material  via a Tentatively Ready status</h1>


<h2>Abstract</h2>
<p>
  Here's the problem, or a couple of them:
</p>
<p>
  Sometimes (NOT all the time), we send material onwards
  from EWG and LEWG and that material
  <ul>
    <li>was discussed with key stakeholders elsewhere</li>
    <li>ends up with surprises about bakedness of the design</li>
    <li>ends up with surprises about implementability and CWG/LWG
    consistency matters</li>
  </ul>
  and sometimes the last bullet is something we realize when
  the design groups think the matter is design-wise settled
  and ready for reviewing technical details, in other words,
  off of LEWG/EWG's plate.
</p>
<p>
  Raising concerns after a LEWG/EWG sign-off is awkward
  and has a high overhead; it's a schedule disruption
  and a distraction, albeit necessary. Sometimes such concerns
  are noticed after the sign-off, and this paper doesn't suggest
  that to change; rather, the author encourages CWG to continue
  sending design material back to EWG eagerly, and encourages
  LWG to do more of the same.
</p>
<p>
  Here's a suggestion for a solution:
</p>
<h4>Let's make it our default
  process that both LEWG and EWG, when sending a proposal
  onwards, first make it Tentatively Ready, announce such transitions
  loudly and widely, give it a (hopefully)
  brief look at the next meeting, and if nothing particular
  concerns anyone, flush it forwards.</h4>

<p>And as always, that would
  be a default process, and can be expedited if need be
  or if there exists a high level of confidence that some
  proposal doesn't need to wait.
  </p>


<h2>Elaboration, and what we expect to happen in the double-checking
  phase for Tentatively Ready papers</h2>

<p>
  So, for an evolutionary group, here's our new proposed default process:
  <ol>
    <li>Discuss a paper in the evolutionary group, find that it has consensus,
    and the evolutionary group thinks it doesn't see anything that would
      necessitate the paper returning to it.</li>
    <li>Mark the paper Tentatively Ready and announce it has such
      status, putting especially the next group in the pipeline on
      notice that such material is incoming. The announcement
      is also expected to implicitly solicit review and feedback
      from the audiences that weren't present in the discussion.
      The most high-order bit, however, is that members of the
      next group in the pipeline are not-so-implicitly invited
      to review the incoming proposal, and they are given time to do it.
    </li>
    <li>For the next meeting, look at whether there was feedback,
      and if not, send forward without further ado (this can be done
      by The Chair), and if there was, discuss the feedback on the reflectors
      and if need be, schedule a discussion for the feedback.</li>
  </ol>
</p>
<p>
  Here are examples of exceptions to the rule, situations where
  we might think we can go straight to the next group:
  <ul>
    <li>a proposal has all the language/library designers that are
      not authors or co-authors of the proposal frantically
      nodding their head, saying it's the right thing, and
      language/library technicians and wordsmiths agree</li>
    <li>a proposal is a smaller technical change and there's early
      feedback from CWG/LWG saying it's a slam dunk</li>
  </ul>
  In other words, while there's wiggle room for uncommon sense
  decisions to not use the default process, let's do that when
  there are strong indications that it's the right thing to do.
</p>

<h2>Is this a "slow things down" process change?</h2>

<p>
  No. First of all, material forwarded from an evolutionary group to the next
  group can't realistically be expected to be dealt with in the same meeting
  by the next group, except in sunshine scenarios. Furthermore, if there
  are no concerns raised, the material just moves without any face-to-face
  time overhead or scheduling overhead. In case concerns were raised,
  this process is arguably one with less overhead than having to punt things
  back from what is supposed to be a wording review, or otherwise disrupt
  a pipeline that was expected to be at a later stage.
</p>

</body>
</html>
