W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-automotive@w3.org > June 2015

[auto-wg] minutes - Editor's Process Meeting - 16 June 2015

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:58:35 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9Xy9xkazk3RSNNg=C3KO2cR81vD2xmJ=h2Tt7K8F0_meA@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-automotive <public-automotive@w3.org>
available at:
 http://www.w3.org/2015/06/16-auto-minutes.html

also as text below.

Unfortunately, the line condition was not great today and probably I missed
several points.  So your input/clarification is welcome :)

Thanks,

Kazuyuki

---

   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                      Automotive WG Editors' call

16 Jun 2015

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2015/06/16-auto-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Paul, Jorg, Junichi, Kaz, QingAn, Wonsuk, Ted

   Regrets
   Chair
          Paul

   Scribe
          kaz

Contents

     * [3]Topics
     * [4]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________

   QingAn asks the way W3C Editors work

   Wonsuk explains it briefly

   wonsuk: leads the group's editing work
   ... provides sentences and ask the group for opinions
   ... if there is no objection, we apply the text
   ... some of the group can lead to generate the spec
   ... it would be great if some of the editors provide initial
   text
   ... and some of them provide comments

   qingan: what if we have multiple editors?

   wonsuk: good comment
   ... when we edit some part of the spec
   ... we can assign specific sections to each editor
   ... while editor A is editing section A, editor B can edit
   section B
   ... only one editor edits his/her assigned part
   ... others can review it

   qingan: make sense

   paul: so different editors edit different parts
   ... the issue is how do you know agreement on merging all the
   changes
   ... the changes should be provided for call for review
   ... "github issues" is a good mechanism

   wonsuk: ok
   ... one thing I'd say is
   ... some of the editors work on some part of the spec
   ... we need to know who is the expert for which section
   ... how can we assign reviewers for which parts

   paul: we have QingAn, Wonsuk, Justin, Kevin and Adam
   ... we used to have two editors
   ... they basically had discussion among the editors
   ... seems to me the spec is big enough
   ... could be broken up
   ... might want to think about that option

   wonsuk: it might be confusing to make slices of the spec
   ... QingAn and myself can coordinate with each other
   ... and work with the other editors
   ... we can start with that way
   ... we can change the approach later if needed
   ... so only QingAn and myself merge the changes as the
   coordinators

   ted: whatever the group would do is fine
   ... good to have issues and mailing list discussion

   kaz: making consensus on the github issues and the mailing list
   would be less confusing given we have multiple editors

   paul: three of the editors are from similar time zone
   ... also Kevin and Adam are from UK
   ... editors from each group should work together
   ... can deligate each other

   wonsuk: ok by me
   ... if I couldn't join some of the meetings
   ... or if QingAn couldn't join
   ... we can communicate with each other and share the
   information

   paul: ok
   ... we can use the minutes to share the information as well
   ... the main thing here is making consensus beforehand

   wonsuk: Kevin wants to be an active editor
   ... which is welcome
   ... if we have one or two more editors that's fine
   ... we can align with each other

   paul: some mechanism like that would work

   wonsuk: ok

   paul: will send the policy to the group list
   ... would see what would happen
   ... any other comments?

   wonsuk: question to Ted
   ... you're editing the editor's draft for publication
   ... after the publication, can I change the document status
   from "Working Draft" to "Editor's Draft"?

   ted: we can use another branch for that purpose
   ... but we can simply change the document itself
   ... we can have feedback for publication
   ... published version is located on the W3C server under the
   /TR area
   ... can use branches to manage multiple versions
   ... depending on the group's need

   wonsuk: we just make an editor's draft
   ... and published version is installed under the /TR area

   ted: working drafts are to be published every 3-4 months
   ... we can have two separate branches, one for editor's draft
   and another for publication
   ... we can get comments to older versions as well

   wonsuk: how many WGs already use the automatic publication
   option?

   ted: HTML WG is a big example

   wonsuk: ok

   paul: anything else?

   (nothing)

   [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [5]scribe.perl version
    1.140 ([6]CVS log)
    $Date: 2015/06/16 01:55:41 $

      [5] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [6] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/



-- 
Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Auto, TV, MMI, Voice and Geo
Tel: +81 3 3516 2504
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2015 01:59:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 24 October 2017 18:52:41 UTC