W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2013

Re: w3process-ISSUE-79: Don't require republication after 6 months of no publication

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:58:08 +0400
To: public-w3process@w3.org, "Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker" <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.w71fy6qwy3oazb@dhcp-219-197-wifi.yandex.net>
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 08:59:00 +0400, Revising W3C Process Community Group  
Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> w3process-ISSUE-79: Don't require republication after 6 months of no  
> publication
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/79
>
> Raised by: Ian Jacobs
> On product:
>
> Comment on 6 Dec 2013 chapter 7:
>
> "If 6 months elapse without significant changes to a specification a
>  Working Group should publish a revised Working Draft, whose status
>  section should indicate reasons for the lack of change."
>
>  If groups are finding it not worth their time to publish, asking
>  them to publish may not have the desired effect. I propose instead
>  that the WG SHOULD send a status update to the webmaster and request
>  that the Webmaster update the most recent draft IN PLACE with the status
>  update.
>
> Charles commented that "if publsihing is painful we should fix that."
>
> If the group should be publishing but they consider it painful, yes we  
> should fix that.
>
> But if the group has some reason for NOT publishing, it makes no sense  
> to require them to publish. Clearly just adding 2 sentences of status  
> update will be useful and sufficient.

Sure. If there is a way to do that (adding a new date), it is Publishing,  
no?

cheers

chaals

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 15:58:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:09 UTC