- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:11:59 +0900
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>, W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
<AB and Process editor hat on> Individual resolutions to publish are still a thing, but they're not strictly necessary: Having a blanket resolution that a the editor can push out new WDs for every edit, or every week, or whenever they feel like it, etc, has been accepted practice for a while. But there should still be a group decision of some kind empowering the editor to do that, as a Working Draft, unlike an Editor's draft, is a Group's document. Echidna (the automated publishing system) actually requires a link to that decision as part of publishing. Voting is certainly not called for, as voting is a last measure thing to be used at the discretion of the chairs to unblock a situation when consensus cannot be found. In this case, consensus is not even needed (even if it is preferable). So any process the chairs deem appropriate to reach that decision is fine, including the chairs just declaring by fiat that we have a resolution to publish. </hat> —Florian > On Dec 13, 2018, at 2:07, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > > I must admit that line in the process seems to be strange these days, when some groups automatically 'publish' *every change in the editor's draft*. Put it another way, any time a PR is merged would trigger a publication. We decided not to do that; had we done that, we would have had about 10-15 publications since the previous one... > > I think having a formal resolution, with voting on a call at all seems to be over the top. Although I believe Matt or I did mention a few weeks ago that we would publish a new version at the next equilibrium point in the work, maybe we can agree that, next time, we send around a mail to the group before we push the necessary button to see if there are some objections. Would that be fine? > > Ivan > >> On 12 Dec 2018, at 17:08, Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 8:55 AM Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> >> >> Just wanted to send a quick note that Ivan and I have updated the public working draft.[1] Our last draft was way back in August, and we’ve since removed the infoset, so it’s been a priority for a while now to sync up the public draft with our ongoing work. Now that we’ve worked through a number of the other issues raised at TPAC, and the preliminary work on the table of contents algorithm is also wrapped up, it was the perfect time to get a new draft out before the holidays. >> >> >> >> >> I wholeheartedly support publishing a new working draft. But doesn't W3C process require that we have a working group resolution first? See https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/#revised-wd >> >> > 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,… >> >> Dave (my mom is a lawyer, so I get annoying like this sometimes...) > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Publishing@W3C Technical Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >
Received on Friday, 14 December 2018 03:12:26 UTC