Fwd: Re: Thierry -- PR constraints?

For your reference, here is the dialog that Thierry & I had before today's 
telecon -- discussing about when editorial changes can be made...

>Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:17:28 -0600
>To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
>From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
>Subject: Re: Thierry -- PR constraints?
>Cc: David Cruikshank <David.W.Cruikshank@boeing.com>,
>  Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
>
>To clarify...
>
>At 02:49 PM 10/26/2006 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
>>[...]
>>Usually when we get comments during the PR review, the WG only accepts 
>>changes that are minor like editorial, typos, etc. and which have no 
>>impact on features.
>>
>>If a request for changes is substantial, the WGs says "too late you 
>>should have submit this during Last Call ...
>
>We will not allow any changes that anyone considers to be 
>substantive.  IMO, such a change must await the errata process or a new 
>version (e.g. 2.1).  Else we will have to recycle at least 2-3 months back 
>in the respective processes.
>
>(Btw, OASIS errata policy does NOT allow substantive errata, only 
>non-substantive.  This is something that I never realized until a couple 
>days ago.)
>
>
>
>>The W3C process is flexible, the PR spev is not frozen, but the WG can 
>>not introduce new semantics, features, etc.
>>
>>In this specific case, the issue is that on the OASIS side no changes are 
>>allowed.
>
>In OASIS, no changes are allowed *after* the TC votes for Committee 
>Specification status.  Until then, editorial (non-substantive) changes are 
>possible.
>
>That vote could happen as soon as 6 November.  It could also be postponed 
>until PR closure in W3C, 30 November.  (The latter would force that OS 
>ballot closes at end of January, instead of end of December -- as we have 
>discussed, there are other factors as well pressuring us to delay the OS vote.)
>
>So ... we can make editorial changes (both specs) until at least 6th November.
>
>
>>If we must have the exact same document published as a REC on W3C web 
>>site and a Spec on OASIS, I don't see how we can currently introduce changes.
>
>I don't know if the exact same document must be published.  The Mou [1] 
>says this:  "It is the intent of both organizations that the eventual W3C 
>Recommendation and OASIS Standard are technically identical, differing 
>only to the extent necessary to satisfy the appropriate organization's 
>policies on document structure, format and presentation."
>
>It could be argued that post-CS editorial changes, which are prohibited in 
>OASIS, could be applied to the W3C spec for REC, and queued as errata to 
>be processed in OASIS immediately after OS.  (In fact, it might be 
>*required* by W3C that some editorial correction -- a link or CSS error or 
>... -- be fixed before publication, if it escaped notice before the CS 
>lock-down).
>
>I would like to know:  1.) what W3C thinks of this interpretation? and, 
>2.) what the WebCGM WG wants to do ("exact same" or "technically identical")?
>
>
>>We could of course add these changes in the errata page.
>
>Yes.  Then REC and OS would be exact same, except for cover page and style 
>sheets.
>
>
>>I am happy to discuss this during the call today.
>
>We should do so.
>
>-Lofton.

Received on Thursday, 26 October 2006 22:14:52 UTC