Re: ReSpec and PERs

Thanks for the quick reply.  I think this means that my draft PERs I
produced today are wrong, in that they still contain the REC boilerplate.
That's a ReSpec bug.    They say something like:

This document has been reviewed by W3C Members, by software developers, and
by other W3C groups and interested parties, and is endorsed by the Director
as a W3C Recommendation. It is a stable document and may be used as
reference material or cited from another document. W3C's role in making the
Recommendation is to draw attention to the specification and to promote its
widespread deployment. This enhances the functionality and interoperability
of the Web.

This Proposed Edited Recommendation reflects minor editorial changes and
changes to references. W3C Advisory Committee Members are invited to send
formal review comments on this Proposed Edited Recommendation to the W3C
Team until 1 February 2015. Members of the W3C Advisory Committee will find
the appropriate review form for this document by consulting their list of
current WBS questionnaires.

uggh.  I will look into it right away.



On Monday, December 1, 2014, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:

>
> On Dec 1, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > Good idea.  Ian, is there boilerplate?
>
> From pubrules [1]:
>
>  "Publication as a Proposed Edited Recommendation does not imply
> endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be
> updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is
> inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress."
>
> Is that what you are looking for? (There are other bits in [1] for PER's,
> so go to town! :)
>
> Ian
>
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?year=2014&uimode=filter&filter=Filter+pubrules&filterValues=form&docstatus=per-tr&patpol=w3c&rectrack=yes&normative=yes&procrev=2005&prevrec=none#docreqs
>
> >
> > On Monday, December 1, 2014, Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > On Dec 1, 2014, at 20:26, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > I know that PERs are pretty rare, but we in the RDFa working group are
> doing 3 or 4 right now.  It turns out that ReSpec doesn't have anything in
> the SoTD template for handling PERs really.  Like reviews, end dates, etc.
> > >
> > > I am inclined to add it so that the next group doesn't get surprised
> like we did.  Any objections?
> >
> > LGTM.
> >
> > Might want to loop in Ian to approve whatever prose is needed for this.
> >
> > --tobie
> >
> >
> > --
> > Shane McCarron
> > Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
> >
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org <javascript:;>>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
>
>
>
>

-- 
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.