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: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:23:30 -0800
Message-ID: <1E0F0378382054439F14D5450650478F0B74F654@RED-MSG-42.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, ext Maryann Hondo <mhondo@us.ibm.com>
CC: <public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org>

Let me summarize what I heard (in this thread) as the intent for
Action-84:

To review Action-77 changes and fix typos/grammar, as appropriate. 

>I have to review your changes - 
>do you have a red-line

Action-77 DIFF version is at http://tinyurl.com/yjpbyf.

>Change "WS-Policy Specification defines" to
>"domains could exploit and then allow" =>

FYI - the two examples you quoted weren't changed as part of Action-77
:-)

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: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 6:39 AM
To: ext Maryann Hondo
Cc: Frederick Hirsch; Asir Vedamuthu; public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org;
public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: Action-77, Action-80, Action-84 (was RE: agenda for today's
policy editors call


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 Wednesday, 29 November 2006 00:24:14 GMT

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