W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Put Editor's draft on TR page, not heartbeat formal publications -> RE: Evaluating policies; pubrules

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:45:24 -0700
Message-ID: <4F6A4BF4.7030308@inkedblade.net>
To: public-w3process@w3.org
On 03/20/2012 01:48 PM, Carr, Wayne wrote:
> The regular TR heartbeat Working Drafts are often useless at best since they're so often out of date with where the WG is with the Editor's draft.  They also confuse people who don't know to look at the more recent editor's draft.  Publishing them more regularly seems like it would involve too much overhead.
>
> Proposal: For WGs that have public editor's drafts, put the disclosure notice in the Editor's draft and put the Editor's draft on the TR page.  Don't publish regular formal heartbeat drafts.  Just publish formal versioned drafts for the required stages (First Draft, LC, CR, PR, REC).  Also, provide access to the editor's drafts under source control so people can look at it at a particular date if they need to.

I would rather not do this, but I also don't want the current process either.
This is because I feel there's usefulness in having an editor's draft that is
scratch space, that isn't official, and that we can use to work out exact edits
together in public.

I also think the current system is horribly broken, because the /TR copy is
often so outdated as to be useless, and everybody is referring to editor's
drafts as if they're the official thing... which for many WGs, due to the
/TR publishing overhead, they effectively are!

So I'm in favor of having live-editable drafts on /TR/shortname. But I think
the editor and the WG should be given the ability to choose which changesets
are published to /TR and which aren't. If I'm halfway through rewriting a
section, I don't want to push that to /TR. But I want it public so that the
people I'm rewriting it with or in response to can review what I'm doing.

I also don't want to completely scrap the dated-snapshot system, since I think
it's useful to publish them periodically -- to show changes in a consolidated
fashion and to accommodate people who want to review drafts in periodic cycles.
I take advantage of the snapshotting myself for modules I'm not intimately
involved with (and in some cases even ones I am!)

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 21:45:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 9 October 2013 23:56:58 UTC