proposal for errata management & life after rec

(This is essentially what we implemented for the CSV on the Web WG)

At the time of closing the WG, I propose we do the following:

- The github repo should be pretty much frozen. What this would mean is:
	- I create a separate 'release' for the Recs
	- the people who are authorized to push and admin the repo would be reduced; i would propose the two co-chair, Benjamin as active editor, the co-chairs of the errata management CG (see below), and the W3C team)
- The issue remains of course public; we close all the issues that are not deferred for a future version.
- The errata management itself would be based on people submitting issues to the github repo, and a page at W3C would automatically pull the content of the repo into an errata report. I have set up a page for CSVW WG[1] which also describes the process. It also contains some examples of reported errata. (If you are interested, the underlying script is at [2].)
- The errata issues would be discussed in a separate CG (in this case, most probably the current annotation CG) to decide whether an erratum is indeed valid. The admin on the github issue (which essentially mean changing the labels) fall on the few people who have the right to do so, see above.

Does that sound all right? I am happy setting up the equivalent of [2] so that we have everything ready when we go to PR.


[1] <>

Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Technical Lead
mobile: +31-641044153

Received on Friday, 7 October 2016 15:57:06 UTC