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

Re: Dead Ends

From: Delfí Ramírez <delfin@delfiramirez.info>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:37:20 +0100
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: chaals@yandex-team.ru, Michael Champion <michael.champion@microsoft.com>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <30411424e10155d39a8f0acde366ab37@correoweb.delfiramirez.info>
No objections at all. 

As a glad observer and after reading all the current process.  

_Note: I am looking if tehre is any possible solution to the issues
mentioned by Chaals concerning to the Github method/ access ( blocked
IPs for stakeholders, et al ...) ._ 

_Not being personally  involved with Github Inc, except for being a
user/subscriber for owned projects, let me see and spend some minutes,
please, to know about this and see if there is a solution to this
exposed concern_ 

---
delfin@delfiramirez.info 
http://delfiramirez.info [1] 

 skype username: segonquart [2]
twitter:@delfinramirez
common weblog: http://delfiramirez.blogspot.com [3] 
Directory of Experts in Information Handling [4] 
about: Technology Lover & good cook. 
place: Somewhere over Europe. 
My Digital Signature [5] 

-------------------------------------------------- 
View my research on my SSRN Author page: 
http://ssrn.com/author=2522406 
-------------------------------------------------- 

'If it's your decision, it's design; if not, it's a requirement.' --
Alastair Cockburn 

On 27/12/2016 08:18, fantasai wrote:

> 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 rescinded. Currently only RECs can be rescinded.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 there...
> 
> 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

 

Links:
------
[1] http://delfiramirez.info/
[2] skype:segonquart?call
[3] http://delfiramirez.blogspot.com/
[4] http://www.directorioexit.info/ficha371
[5] http://delfiramirez.info/public/dr_public_key.asc
Received on Tuesday, 27 December 2016 13:37:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 27 December 2016 13:37:52 UTC