Issue-159 ACTION REQUIRED: Call for Consensus: Proposed Process Change Regarding the definition of "Editorial Change"

This is a Call for Consensus to update the Process 2015 Draft with a change to Section 7.2.5, item 2. "Corrections that do not affect conformance". (This item defines one of the classes of changes to a document.)

Responses to this call are due by Close of Business on 12 April 2015 (one week). Please send a reply to this message (I agree, I disagree, I abstain) to register your opinion. The CG rules do NOT assume that a lack of reply is agreement with the proposal. (See
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jun/0160.html
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jun/0163.html )
If you wish to discuss the proposed change, please create a new thread for that discussion (so that "votes" are easily separated from "discussion").

The proposed change

The existing Draft Process 2015 text is,
"2. Corrections that do not affect conformance
Editorial changes or clarifications that do not change the technical content of the specification."

The proposed replacement text is,
"2. Corrections that do not affect conformance
Changes that reasonable implementers would not interpret as changing architectural or interoperability requirements or their implementation.  Changes which resolve ambiguities in the specification are considered to change (by clarification) the implementation requirements and do not fall into this class. Examples of changes in this class are correcting non-normative code examples where the code clearly conflicts with normative requirements, clarifying informative use cases or other non-normative text, fixing typos or grammatical errors where the change does not change implementation requirements. If there is any doubt as to whether requirements are changed, such changes do not belong to this class."

Rationale
As noted in Issue-159, there are two problems with the current Section 7.2.5. The first is that "editorial change" refers both to the first two classes (of changes) and it is used in the definition of the second class. The second is that the rest of the definition of the second class has been found to be too vague. The proposed replacement text is intended to fix both of these problems.
[Issue-159] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/159

It is possible, that the last sentence of the replacement text, "If there is any doubt as to whether requirements are changed, such changes do not belong to this class." is not really needed as it is primarily a warning to be careful. Please indicate if you want to keep it or drop it.

Thanks to Wayne Carr who proposed a slightly different change
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/0012.html
and whose suggested text I have edited above as a change to the second class of "editorial change" because I think distinguishing the two classes is useful.

Steve Zilles
Chair, Process Document Task Force