W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org > November 2006

Re: Action-77, Action-80, Action-84 (was RE: agenda for today's policy editors call

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 09:57:45 -0500
Message-Id: <C23D0687-B23A-4B53-8E01-8B6447A47620@nokia.com>
Cc: ext Maryann Hondo <mhondo@us.ibm.com>, Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>, public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org, public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
To: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>

To summarize

1. I will review Maryann's changes,
2. take an editorial cleanup pass as described below, and
3. raise issues for anything, which in my judgement as an editor,  
could require committee agreement.

We agreed this on the last call, that I would do this during this  
week, I'll try to do before editors meeting on tomorrow, but that  
will depend on how difficult it is to do.

I will also make this revision available to the editors for review.

I do not know how to create a red-line, is there an easy way from  
within eclipse. I run a Macintosh and do not use Frontpage, is there  
any open source available for this? How are the other editors doing  
this?
Are there instructions available?

Thanks

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia


On Nov 28, 2006, at 9:39 AM, Frederick Hirsch wrote:

> Editorial pass means review and correction of wording, grammar, and  
> style (e.g. avoid passive voice where possible etc), changing which  
> to that, etc. Editorial...
>
> Here is an example of a change I might make without raising an  
> issue, and for which I think it is stupid to devote committee time  
> (from older draft, I have to review your changes - do you have a  
> red-line, or is that the red-line Asir generated?)
>
> Change "WS-Policy Specification defines" to "The WS-Policy  
> Specification defines"
>
> Here is another
>
> "domains could exploit and then allow" => "domain assertion authors  
> can use and then allow"
>
> I was planning to improve grammar and wording as part of an  
> editorial pass, but cannot if I have to raise an issue for each  
> minor wording change. I thought it would make the document better.
>
> I will raise an issue for anything that might require committee  
> agreement, however, I don't want to waste committee time on purely  
> editorial issues, nor mine in raising an issue for every wording  
> change.
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
> On Nov 28, 2006, at 9:07 AM, ext Maryann Hondo wrote:
>
>>
>> Asir,
>> so let me see if I understand what you are questioning....
>> I did assume that the action item I took ( 77) covered the items d-h.
>>
>> I think Frederick has offered (as we have done in the past) to  
>> "review" my changes
>> for readability. When I took previous actions, either Toufic or  
>> Dave looked at the proposed changes,
>> and gave feedback.  I would assume that Frederick will do the  
>> same.  Frederick, it has been our
>> process to have one person do the actual changes, so I think this  
>> is why Asir is asking these questions.
>>
>> For anything not "editorial" I would think we would need to open  
>> an issue and have
>> it reviewed and assigned to the editorial team.
>>
>> Frederick,
>> is that your understanding? or did you have more substantive  
>> changes in mind? and if so,
>> were you planning to open issues for these?  It has been our  
>> process to have the editors take
>> actions that the working group has agreed to.  Does that make  
>> sense to everyone?
>>
>> Maryann
>>
>> FYI.... Frederick I will need to correct something I did in the  
>> document and just want to make sure that
>> we don't collide in any editing attempts. Asir has pointed out  
>> that section 4.4.8 belongs in the Primer, not in
>> the guidelines although I think a pointer to the primer should be  
>> in the guidelines doc.
>>
>>
>>
>> Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
>> Sent by: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
>> 11/21/2006 08:25 PM
>>
>> To
>> Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, Maryann Hondo/ 
>> Austin/IBM@IBMUS
>> cc
>> <public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org>
>> Subject
>> Action-77, Action-80, Action-84 (was RE: agenda for today's policy  
>> editors call
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On the tracker, there are three actions for implementing the  
>> resolution
>> for issue 3792: 77, 80 and 84.
>>
>> Issue 3792 [1] resolution is as follows:
>>
>> Primer
>> a) Retain Section 4.2 (fold into section 3)
>> b) Retain Section 4.4.8 (fold into section 3)
>> c) Drop section 4
>>
>> Guidelines
>> d) Absorb Section 4.3, Primer
>> e) Absorb Section 4.5, Primer, as a new section (lead-in or follow- 
>> on)
>> f) Blend in contents from Section 4 and 4.1, Primer
>> g) Use the style of guidance for designing assertions from Section  
>> 4.4,
>> Primer (for instance, enumerate the set of design questions)
>> h) Use forward pointers to show where the answers can be found for  
>> these
>> design questions.
>>
>> Action-80 [2] covers items a)-c).
>> Action-77 [3] covers items d)-h).
>>
>> I assume that any proposed new content or proposed changes to  
>> existing
>> content will embark the natural path: commentator opens a WG issue  
>> and
>> proposes a resolution, WG discusses and resolves the issue, WG  
>> adopts a
>> resolution, editors open a corresponding editorial action (s) ...
>>
>> >I can take an editorial pass on the guidelines
>>
>> What is an editorial pass?
>>
>> >I think it is simplest to update with my editorial suggestions
>>
>> Are there any e-mails to the WG that describe these editorial (or
>> substantial) suggestions? Or, are there any related WG issues?
>>
>> It is not clear what is the intent for the third action, Action-84  
>> [4].
>> Are we trying to split items d)-h) into two actions? If positive,  
>> what
>> is the split?
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3792#c2
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/80
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/77
>> [4] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/84
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Asir S Vedamuthu
>> Microsoft Corporation
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
>> [mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick
>> Hirsch
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 9:10 AM
>> To: ext Maryann Hondo
>> Cc: Frederick Hirsch; public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: agenda for today's policy editors call
>>
>>
>> I can take an editorial pass on the guidelines, the week after next.
>> Next week I will be on vacation and unavailable.
>>
>> I think it is simplest to update with my editorial suggestions as
>> well as other agreed changes and then share that revision. It is more
>> work to write up the suggestions than to edit.
>>
>> Editors can then review the redline, and I can then update with
>> additional changes as needed.
>>
>> Will this work?
>>
>> regards, Frederick
>>
>> Frederick Hirsch
>> Nokia
>>
>>
>> On Nov 15, 2006, at 11:17 AM, ext Maryann Hondo wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I believe its my turn to chair the editors meeting since I was
>> > scribe last week.
>> >
>> > Welcome to Fred & Umit.
>> > We have generally followed a rotation pattern .....we can review
>> > this on the call.
>> >
>> >
>> > So,
>> >
>> > The primary topic we need to cover is the plan for getting the
>> > Guidelines and Primer documents to the working group.
>> >
>> >
>> > Logistics:
>> > Duration: 1hour -  2pm-3pm Eastern
>> > Dial-in: See http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/policy/editors#meetings
>> >
>> > Zakim------- The code is 3348 (617-761-6200)
>> > IRC----------------#ws-policy-eds
>> >
>> >
>> > Proposed Agenda:
>> >
>> > 1. Administrative
>> >
>> >
>> > review the rotation.....add in umit & fred
>> >
>> >     a. This week's arrangements:
>> >        Chair -Maryann
>> >        Scribe - ??
>> >        Regrets:
>> >
>> >
>> >   b.Editorial Team Report: will be delivered by Dave O (yes?)
>> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy-eds/2006Nov/
>> > 0051.html
>> >
>> >   c. Last call's Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2006/11/09-ws-policy-
>> > eds-minutes.html
>> >
>> > 2. Open Editors Action Items (status Review):
>> > http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/open
>> >
>> > 3.The primary topic we need to cover is the plan for getting the
>> > Guidelines and Primer documents to the working group.
>> > 4. NEW Editorial Actions from this week's WG Conference Call
>> >
>> > 5. AOB?
>> >
>> > Maryann
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2006 16:33:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:59 GMT