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

Re: [TR] Status Section Requirements

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 07:30:43 -0400
Message-ID: <52723F63.7090804@nokia.com>
To: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 10/31/13 3:22 AM, ext fantasai wrote:
> # Every document published as part of the technical report development
> # process must clearly indicate its maturity level, and must include a
> # section about the status of the document. The status section
> #
> #  1. must be unique each time a specification is published,
> #  2. must state who developed the specification,
> #  3. must state how to send comments or file bugs, and where these 
> are recorded,
> #  4. should explain how the technology relates to existing international
> #       standards and related work inside or outside W3C,
> #  5. should include expectations about next steps, and
> #  6. should explain or link to an explanation of significant changes
> #      from the previous version.

Oh dear. I thought one of the problems this effort was supposed to fix 
is the pervasive mixing/conflating of requirements for publication, Team 
responsibilities, Chair responsibilities, descriptions of maturity 
levels etc., but I guess that hasn't happened (at least not entirely) :-(.

My vote on the issues you raise above would be to move this entire 
section to a separate `TR publication process` type document with musts, 
suggestions, best practices, etc. that can be easily updated if/when the 
tide changes, as well as give the producers of the doc some flexibility.

(BTW, I'm not sure about the intended audience(s) for this doc but 
having such an authoritative list right after the ToC would probably 
cause a lot of newbies to stop reading.)

-Cheers, AB
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2013 11:40:26 UTC

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