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: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:08:21 -0400
To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5616B115.9080706@w3.org>


On 10/8/2015 1:55 PM, Wayne Carr wrote:
>
>
> 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

I know that substantive change is defined in the process document. That 
wasn't my question.

The diagram differentiates between substantive change and very 
substantive change.  I don't see any such definition in the process 
document.

Perhaps you are arguing that substantive change is "3 Corrections" and 
very substantive is "4 New features".  If that is the intent, I would 
prefer to use that language in the diagram.

>
> 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 18:08:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 8 October 2015 18:08:30 UTC