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

Re: Suggested change to Revised Public Working Drafts section

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:24:25 +0200
Message-ID: <996683968.20131010012425@w3.org>
To: "Charles McCathie Nevile" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
CC: public-w3process@w3.org
Hello Charles,

Thursday, October 10, 2013, 1:19:42 AM, you wrote:

> 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>

Okay. I would say that it doesn't add a should; it divides a "should if
A or B" into "should if A" and "should if B".

It does add a MAY, though.

> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>





-- 
Best regards,
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 23:24:26 UTC

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