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

There wouldn't be another dated version added to a list every time the editor made a change.

The two options are:

1. Dated TR WG Draft version no less than once every 6 weeks.
OR
2. On TR page include Editor's draft (undated - the single URL for the latest) and in the draft clearly mark what is content that has not been socialized and agreed to by the WG.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
>Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 2:33 PM
>To: public-w3process@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Put Editor's draft on TR page, not heartbeat formal publications ->
>RE: Evaluating policies; pubrules
>
>On 03/22/2012 07:43 AM, Giuseppe Pascale wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:45:24 +0100, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
>wrote:
>>
>>> 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 since they're so often out of date with where the WG is with the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 copy is often so outdated as to be useless, and everybody is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.
>>>
>> So can this be achieved by just lowering the bar for editors draft to
>> be pushed in /TR space, while still keeping editor draft as base for discussion
>and feedbacks?
>
>No, because pushing to /TR currently requires a dated snapshot. And if you dated-
>snapshot every typo fix in the name of keeping /TR up-to-date, you lose the
>usefulness of having snapshots at all: it essentially becomes a different view of
>the Mercurial repository with all the noise of the full list of changesets.
>
>Snapshots serve a purpose. Persistently up-to-date copies of a spec serve a
>purpose. But trying to make one system serve both purposes makes both systems
>broken.
>
>~fantasai

Received on Friday, 23 March 2012 15:03:31 UTC