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

Re: [TR] Status Section Requirements

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:22:01 -0700
Message-ID: <5272D809.90101@inkedblade.net>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
CC: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 10/31/2013 02:11 PM, fantasai wrote:
> On 10/31/2013 04:30 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> +1 I would love for publication requirements to be a separate doc.

Concrete proposal:

1. Remove the entirety of

   # Every document published as part of the technical report development
   # process must clearly indicate its maturity level [...] significant
   # changes from the previous version.

Create a *separate* section about formatting and meta-information a TR
must include, containing the following text:

   # Every document published as part of the technical report development process
   #
   # - must clearly indicate
   #     * its maturity level
   #     * who developed the specification
   #     * how to send comments or file bugs, and where these are recorded
   #     * copyrights, licensing, and other required legal paraphernalia
   #
   # - must include a human-readable non-boilerplate statement about
   #   the status of the document -- such as what an intelligent
   #   reader perhaps from another group would need to know about
   #   how it's going and what the next steps might be
   #
   # - should explain or link to an explanation of significant changes
   #   from the previous version
   #
   # - should explain how the technology relates to existing international
   #   standards and related work inside or outside W3C,

This section should eventually move to a publication rules document,
rather than being part of the Process.

Note that the wording above does not require any particular placement
of the required/recommended information, only that it exist somewhere
in the document.

~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2013 22:22:31 UTC

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