W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > November 2011

RE: End-of-lifing dead documents in /TR/

From: Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:23:38 +0000
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <52F8A45B68FD784E8E4FEE4DA9C6E52A16F0A717@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
+1

There are some drafts people bring up to me time after time that are dead, but no one knows.  Even if it says something on a WG wiki, if it isn't in the draft people aren't going to know.

One possibility could be if a draft misses it's heartbeat publication by x months, it automatically gets marked prominently in the status section as not being currently worked on.

If a draft is waiting for something else there could be a prominent note in the status section (or even above it) that says what it is waiting for, with periodic updates that they are still waiting.

If the status isn't being updated, it could be marked dormant and finally something like withdrawn (and marked in the same way if the WG decides to drop it).


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@berjon.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 8:32 AM
>To: public-w3process@w3.org
>Subject: End-of-lifing dead documents in /TR/
>
>Hi all,
>
>I think that one regular issue with the way we work that is easily fixable is to flag
>documents that have been published to /TR/ but are no longer being worked on
>as such. Sometimes a WG will realise that one of the deliverables it had been
>working on is no longer useful, groups run out of steam, etc. But then the
>document stays.
>
>I strongly believe (if only because I get that sort of question on a very regular
>basis) that we need to be clearer in our status to outside stakeholders. We should
>therefore have a way of flagging dead (or very dormant) documents as such in a
>very clear manner. For Recommendations there is the Rescinded state with its
>classy teenage Goth style
>(http://respec.specifiction.com/guide/eg/boilerplate.html?specStatus=RSCND)
>but for anything that hasn't reached Rec we have nothing but republishing as WD
>with a warning... which is rarely done.
>
>To take just one example look at http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-fragment, the
>Candidate Recommendation for XML Fragment Interchange which has been in
>this state since... February 2001. If you miss the date (which, unless you're one of
>the people here, you probably will) you might think that this is something hip, hot,
>and coming in the XML world. It may seem obvious to those here that it isn't, but
>I remember getting questions from tools vendors as late as 2006 about whether
>they should support this one.
>
>The current process for this as per §7.5 is to move the draft to a Note. I think that
>that's a useful step, but "visually" insufficient. It would be useful if there were a
>stylesheet for "dead" documents that could be swapped in and some common
>boilerplate used.
>
>I don't think we need to amend the Process for this (or at least not much) — just
>the CSS + boilerplate should be enough. It may be useful to go through ancient
>drafts and perform some cleanup as well.
>
>WDYT?
>
>--
>Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>

Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 18:24:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:07 UTC