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

Re: [Issue-101] Replacement for the other of the diagrams in the Process document

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:55:42 -0700
To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5616AE1E.6010407@linux.intel.com>


On 2015-10-06 21:18, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>
>
> On 10/6/2015 11:50 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>>
>> See below
>>
>> *From:*Jeff Jaffe [mailto:jeff@w3.org]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 06, 2015 6:20 PM
>> *To:* Stephen Zilles; public-w3process@w3.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Issue-101] Replacement for the other of the diagrams 
>> in the Process document
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> In CR, if there are substantial changes we stay in CR; but if there 
>> are very substantial changes we go back to WD.
>>
>> Have we defined the difference between substantial changes and very 
>> substantial changes?
>>
>> */[SZ] No, IMO it is up to the WG to decide whether the changes would 
>> take a document out of CR. The most obvious reason would be that 
>> there need to be major implementation changes and, therefore, the 
>> document is not really ready for implementation (the anachronistic 
>> definition of CR) anymore. If the changes involve implementation 
>> tweeks and the participants agree that they should be made, then 
>> those are substantive, but not “very substantive”. If you think 
>> putting in some text like that would be useful, it could be proposed/*
>>
>
> I wasn't making a proposal.  I was just trying to make sense of the 
> terms in the proposed diagram.  Your explanation doesn't make it clear 
> enough (at least for me).

It's defined in the process doc.  I think the wording in the diagram is 
to refer to:

http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#substantive-change
It is 3 Corrections that do not add new features and 4 New features.

Here's the section that says what happens in those cases PR for 3 and 
FPWD for 4.
http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#revised-rec

Maybe "feature modifications" or "feature tweaks" instead of substantive 
and "new features" instead of very substantive for the diagram ?


>
>> *//*
>>
>> */Steve Z/*
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On 10/5/2015 10:17 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>>
>>     A proposed, revised replacement for diagram in sections 6.7 of the 2015 Process Document
>>
>>        http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#revised-rec
>>
>>     is attached.
>>
>>       
>>
>>     Comments are welcome
>>
>>       
>>
>>     Steve Z
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2015 17:56:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 8 October 2015 17:56:13 UTC