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 01:56:28 +0200
To: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.w4posen1y3oazb@chaals.local>
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:24:25 +0200, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:

> 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.

Not the way I implemented it in the draft :)

See changeset https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/rev/95aaf11e21a0 (or the new  
editor's draft, which I have just published and am about to annouce...)

cheers

Chaals

>> 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 23:56:58 UTC

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