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

Re: Errata and Edited Recommendation [ISSUE-45]

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:56:24 +0200
To: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.w4posaxxy3oazb@chaals.local>
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:35:58 +0200, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
> Wednesday, October 9, 2013, 11:10:27 PM, you wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:11:59 +0200, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:

>>> This comment relates to publishing an edited recommendation
>>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/tr.html#rec-publication
>>>
>>> I am concerned that the current text might be interpreted in a way
>>> that leads to significant delay in the publication of Edited
>>> Recommendations.
>>>
>>> Consider the following situation: a WG has dealt with 100 errata
>>> items, which all have tests and an implementation report that shows
>>> implementors are on board with the changes. They plan to publish an
>>> Edited Rec on Tuesday. On Monday a new errata item is opened. Lets
>>> assume it is non trivial and generates substantial discussion about
>>> whether it is actually an error and if so, the best way to fix it.
>
>> I am very reluctant to make the change.
>
>> As you note, the Process says groups *should* include all known errata.
>
> I understand that you don't want to conflict with the Process
> Document. On the other hand this is an update to one section of it,
> no?
>
>> If a Working Group doesn't understand RFC 2119 well enough to offer the
>> argument "it is useful to produce a better version soon, rather than  
>> wait forever to produce a possibly perfect version", I don't think the  
>> process document is the problem holding them back.
>
> Fair enough. On the other hand, I don't think that text which says
> "should do A" and means "will usually not do A because of reasons" is
> as helpful as it might be.
>
> Second proposal: keep the "should address all errata" bullet item and
> add explanatory wording afterwards, such as
>
>   <p class="helpWith2119Should">One reason to publish an Edited
>   Recommendation, but not publish all errata, would be the existence
>   of well tested and implemented errata (which should be published)
>   along with more recent, untested errata or errata which are still
>   under discussion. In such a case, the new edition would be
>   published with a non-empty errata list.</p>

I wondered about that, but think it really belongs in the "getting to Rec  
faster" informative guidance, not the process itself.

>> Have there been real problems with this in the past, that suggest the
>> problem will recur?
>
> Yes, the slowness to publish a second edition of CSS 2.1 springs to
> mind, caused by a slow but constant trickle of new errata while there
> is a substantial set of well known, implemented in practice, tested
> errata which could and should have been published. But the queue was
> never (fully) empty.

Right, but I believe (and fervently hope) that we learned the lesson there  
of not waiting a decade to go from better to perfection.

So I still propose no change in the draft :) (I'm willing to hear an  
outcry against my stupidity and to change my mind, of courseā€¦)

cheers

Chaals

-- 
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 23:56:56 UTC

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