W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Re: editors - "versions" in the WG drafts

From: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 06:38:36 +0900
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020826213836.GA25756@w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>


On Mon, Aug 26, 2002, Lofton Henderson wrote:
> This was partially intentional.  We (editors) recognize /TR/, WG drafts, 
> and editor drafts.  WG was supposed to be more frequent than /TR/ -- like 
> every 4-6 weeks.  Editor was supposed to be limited circulation.  I found 
> in the last two months that the only effective way to get adequate WG 
> involvement in weekly SpecGL issue resolution was to post a weekly new 
> draft with issues and changes flagged inline.
> I have no reason to think that these numerous drafts should be hidden, but 
> on the other hand they show much less preparation than WG drafts -- much 
> rougher -- and I wonder if exposing them all might not be "overload".

Thanks for this explanation. I was aware of the "editors draft" but
somehow I felt that they had a lot of historical interest and would have
liked to see them easier to find. However if you think it's not worth
it, that's an understandable position. What do others (editors) think?

Now, if the group agrees upon this, the issue just changes name, and
becomes the fact that between (early) may and (late) august there has
been no (group) draft for the public to read. I don't recall there is
anything mandatory about this, but the "usage" in many groups seems to
be a group draft ~ every month (every 4-6 weeks, as you mentioned, is
certainly good).

Anyway, Lofton, let's work together to "publish" the 20020826 WG draft
when you have time.

Received on Monday, 26 August 2002 17:38:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:28 UTC