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

Re: Suggested change to Revised Public Working Drafts section

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:19:42 +0200
To: public-w3process@w3.org, "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>, "Charles McCathie Nevile" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Message-ID: <op.w4pm24gfy3oazb@chaals.local>
On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 23:10:31 +0200, Charles McCathie Nevile  
<chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> I believe this change is editorial in nature. I support it.

No it isn't. It adds a "should" reequirement. I raised ISSUE-46 to track  
it: <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/46>

I still support it, and have speculatively implemented it in the new draft  
I will publish very shortly.

cheers

Chaals

> I will integrate it in the next Editors' draft (to be published later  
> tonight), so if anyone thinks it should not be made (or should be  
> reverted) please speak up...
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 20:51:50 +0200, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello Public-w3process,
>>
>> This is a comment on
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/tr.html
>> Editors' Draft 3 October 2013
>>
>> It is an editorial suggestion which would not be a substantive change
>> but would I think set expectations more clearly.
>>
>> In section 7.4.1b Revised Public Working Drafts
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/tr.html#revised-wd
>>
>> current text
>>
>>   "A Working Group should publish a Working Draft to the W3C Technical
>>   Reports page every 6 months, or sooner when there have been
>>   significant changes to the document that would benefit from review
>>   from beyond the Working Group.
>>
>> suggested text
>>
>>   "A Working Group should publish a Working Draft to the W3C Technical
>>   Reports page when there have been significant changes to the
>>   document that would benefit from review from beyond the Working
>>   Group.
>>
>>   If 6 months have elapsed without changes, a Working Draft should
>>   also be published. In that case the status may indicate reasons for
>>   lack of change."
>>
>>
>> The suggested wording emphasizes publication as a result of
>> significant change, rather than a 6 month heartbeat. Technical rather
>> than procedural emphasis.
>>
>> It also adds a suggestion to explain why a draft has not changed at
>> all (changes, not just significant changes) in six months.
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 23:20:14 UTC

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