Re: on version and list of editors for current issue (was: Re: JLReq TF meeting notes 2019 June 12th)

I am fine with that approach. Richard, what do you think?

- kida

> 2019/06/18 2:31、Atsushi Shimono (W3C Team) <atsushi@w3.org>のメール:
> 
>   hi Richard-san, Kida-san
> 
> On 2019/06/17 18:03, Yasuo Kida wrote:
>> *JLReq TF meeting notes 2019 June 12th*
> 
>> *Meeting notes*
> 
>> *Status of JLReq update **(**Shimono-san**)*
>>  * Status
>>      o There are a few remaining open errata: #10 <https://github.com/w3c/jlreq/issues/10>, #15 <https://github.com/w3c/jlreq/issues/15>, #18 <https://github.com/w3c/jlreq/issues/18>, #53 <https://github.com/w3c/jlreq/issues/53>, #56 <https://github.com/w3c/jlreq/issues/56>
>>  * Consensus
>>      o Will fix discrepancies between English and Japanese (like #53 <https://github.com/w3c/jlreq/issues/53>, #56 <https://github.com/w3c/jlreq/issues/56>) as they are reported.
>>      o Regarding the glossary (#60 <https://github.com/w3c/jlreq/issues/60>), the agreement is to fix the links.
>>  * Actions
>>      o Archive images on git-lfs (#63 <https://github.com/w3c/jlreq/issues/63>). Thank you Xue Fuquiao for suggestions. (Shimono-san)
>>      o Fix the links in the glossary (Shimono-san. The GA report is higher priority.)
> 
> 
>   For current issue of JLReq document, we agreed during last F2F meeting that the current issue
> shall keep as 2nd version with errata fixed but not upgraded with major edits as 3rd version.
>   So, we would like
> - to keep current editors' draft as 2nd version (with update for contribution)
> - to have editors' list of 2nd version as is, and set list of former editors as of 1st version
> 
>   If these are acceptable for you, we would like to add an issue and related PR to update the
> current editors' draft.
> 
> 
>   best,
>

Received on Monday, 17 June 2019 22:36:37 UTC