W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > October 2014

Re: 2014 Process Regresses Editorial Revision of RECs

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 14:27:19 -0700
Message-ID: <54515BB7.50206@inkedblade.net>
To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 10/15/2014 07:44 PM, Wayne Carr wrote:
> Even if that were the case, they do have co-workers who do have
> expertise.  Typically, the AC is more likely to be involved
> than WG reps when something impacts licensing commitments or
> represents the W3C Member's organizations view (like the AC
> Review of Proposed Recommendations or WG Charters).

This is about editorial changes only. There is no licensing
commitment or technical opinion for the AC to review.

> Of course people could raise new errata later.  But, once its
> out as a REC there are associated licensing commitments.  The
> entire spec could be rescinded later, but that's a drastic
> action and even that wouldn't undo everything.  A PR period
> allows a look before it gets published, as would a Director's
> decision with the possibility of an AC appeal.

The AC review triggered by PR is not the right forum for
deciding whether the edits in question are editorial or
technical. If that is the concern, then invent a process
that actually is tailored to address that concern. Putting
the draft through PR is an absurd way to address that

> For the reasons, above that wouldn't work.

The above reasons are invalid because they're concerns that
are only relevant for non-editorial edits.

Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2014 21:27:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:12 UTC