Re: CfC to publish documents as FPWD of the Web Payments WG

This is the problem with the model - thanks for saying it so succinctly
Chaals.  I think it is incumbent on the working group / editors to ensure
there is a loud shout when there are significant changes that need review,
as opposed to spelling and formatting fixes.  That's a process problem -
but it feels surmountable.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Chaals McCathie Nevile <> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:49:23 +0200, Manu Sporny <>
> wrote:
> On 04/12/2016 06:59 PM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>>> I am super open to adopting a working model like the following:
>>>   * Propose changes via PR
>>>   * Debate PRs until agreed or rejected
>>>   * Merge PRs that are agreed
>>>   * Automatically rev the WD via Echidna (W3C publication tool that just
>>>     works) daily if there are merges.
>> +1 to this working model with an emphasis on using Echidna to do
>> auto-publication of EDs/WDs.
> I don't mind what process the group uses to publish, so long as it is
> reasonably lightweight and avoids the case where people have to fight over
> a particular draft since the next chance to provide something to the world
> will be in a year. I note that public editors' drafts are a big help with
> that too, handled sensibly.
> Unless there is some kind of signal like "we made a real change here,
> please look at it", there's a problem. I'm can closely follow the issues
> list and review pull requests regularly, where I mean "every six months".
> Otherwise, it is not possible. Knowing the difference between the changes
> people consider important and worthy of close review, vs those that are
> editorial or otherwise minor, is an important guide to enabling review that
> worth the time it took.
> cheers
> chaals
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> - - - Find more at

Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops

Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2016 18:52:16 UTC