W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > April 2015

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

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:20:53 -0700
Message-id: <C5832186-68E3-4E1B-95A4-D873D7CE7C20@apple.com>
To: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
generally yes, with one small emendation


> On Apr 7, 2015, at 15:22 , Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2015-04-07 11:34, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I think we should keep it to make it absolutely clear to err on the side of not calling it an editorial change if there is any doubt.

I’d like to suggest we add “or dissent”, to match the requirement that no-one in the WG disagrees.

"If there is any doubt or dissent as to whether requirements are changed, such changes do not belong to this class."

> 
>>  
>> 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
> 
> 

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2015 23:21:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 7 April 2015 23:21:23 UTC