W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2016

Re: Dead Ends

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 10:48:01 +0330
To: chaals@yandex-team.ru, Michael Champion <michael.champion@microsoft.com>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f1d962d0-83ab-e3ba-08cc-a33ad4f1a97f@inkedblade.net>
On 12/27/2016 02:21 AM, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
>
> 26.12.2016, 14:02, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>:
>>
>> It would be *better* if the Process allowed for WDs and CRs to be
>> rescinded. Currently only RECs can be rescinded. :(
>>
>> I guess that's a relatively easy fix; hadn't occurred to me to request it.
>> Chaals? :) :)
>
> The process currently suggests Working Groups publish dead things as notes -
> empty with the obnoxious notice is the common 'best practice'. Where W3C
> closes down work, they are required to do that. So I think the mechanism
> is thereā€¦
>
> As I noted elsewhere, making the default view of the TR page reflect live
> things differently from dead things would be a simple thing to do, doesn't
> require any process change, just a bit of work on the page itself.

Either it is better for dead things to have their own status *or* the system
of republishing as notes is better. I can't see any reason, other than "I
don't want to make a change", to take a hybrid position on this matter.

If the system of giving dead things a definitive status is better, then all
things that are dead, whether they reached REC or not, should be able to
take that status.

If the system of republishing as notes is better, then let us remove the
Rescinded status from the Process and treat dead RECs the same as WDs and CRs,
since we have concluded that that method is better.

In either case a change to the Process is warranted.

Personally, I'm in favor of marking dead things clearly with their own
status and would prefer that the Process allowed WDs and CRs to transition
to Rescinded as well as RECs.

What, if any, are the objections to this?

~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 27 December 2016 12:54:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 27 December 2016 12:54:55 UTC