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

Re: w3process-ISSUE-44 (MinorUpdateNoNewReview): Process should be clear that minor edits at same level do not trigger new review period

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:56:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJK2wqVcskYfCnY0-voTRZZd8eO-o+yvfAC7f9ROvUza_BDzhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>, Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
SGTM.


On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile <
chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 14:29:56 +0200, Revising W3C Process Community Group
> Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>
>  w3process-ISSUE-44 (MinorUpdateNoNewReview): Process should be clear that
>> minor edits at same level do not trigger new review period
>>
>
> I frankly want to discourage groups from "minor edits". I've seen far too
> many of them that make real differences, and I think it is important that a
> group can justify any change explicitly.
>
> That said, the current draft has "If there are any *substantive* [emphasis
> mine] changes made to a Last Call Candidate Recommendation other than to
> remove features explicitly identified as "at risk", the Working Group must
> repeat the full process of publication as a Last Call Candidate
> Recommendation before the Working Group can request Recommendation status."
>
> This effectively allows for editorial changes. I propose to close this
> issue...
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
>
>  http://www.w3.org/community/**w3process/track/issues/44<http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/44>
>>
>> Raised by: Ian Jacobs
>> On product:
>>
>>  From http://www.w3.org/2005/10/**Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-**advance<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-advance>
>>> :
>>>
>>
>>   " Between any two steps after a Last Call announcement, the Working
>> Group MAY publish a new draft of the technical report at the same maturity
>> level provided there are no substantive changes since the earlier step."
>>
>> This allows a group, for example, to update a Candidate Rec with minor
>> edits without having to go backwards.
>>
>> In the new process it would be good to allow groups to publish drafts
>> with minor edits without triggering a new mandatory review period.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
>       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
>
>
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2013 15:56:33 UTC

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