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 09:39:25 -0500
Message-Id: <02618D11-8E55-41D0-A79E-E207C5125FB3@nokia.com>
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>, public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org, public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
To: ext Maryann Hondo <mhondo@us.ibm.com>

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 16:53:38 GMT

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