- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 08:48:28 -0400
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "David (Standards) Singer" <singer@apple.com>
- CC: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 9/12/2014 8:27 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 9/12/14, 5:27 AM, Stephen Zilles wrote: >> Is it this last piece that you find overly burdensome? > > _I_ am not finding anything overly burdensome personally, because I am > not myself trying to issue errata. > > I am trying to get working groups to issue errata, and my observation > is that they generally push back on this pretty strenuously. My > conclusion is that they perceive some part of the errata-issuing > process to be overly burdensome. You'd have to ask them what exactly > the burdensome part is and how to make it less burdensome. > > If you want me to speculate past what I can actually observe, I > believe it's simply a matter of priorities and incentives. Making > sure errata happen expeditiously is a top priority for WHATWG specs > (in fact a basic premise of the whole "living specification" setup), > but a complete non-priority for W3C ones. As far as I can tell, there > are no incentives inside the W3C process or organization for actually > issuing errata, so it's just perceived as extra work for no benefit. Thanks Boris. So the process issue that we should work on is: How to motivate the W3C Community and WGs to expeditiously and consistently issue errata? Correct? > > -Boris >
Received on Friday, 12 September 2014 12:48:46 UTC