RE: Refreshed draft

> But doesn't W3C process require that we have a working group resolution first?

 

I recall we only did that for the FPWD, and then we were going to try and go the route of publishing often so haven’t had one since (but haven’t published as often as we’d expected, either). I’ll defer to the chairs if we need/want to call for a resolution each time going forward, of course.

 

Matt 

 

From: Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com> 
Sent: December 12, 2018 12:09
To: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
Cc: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Refreshed draft

 

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 8:55 AM Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com <mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi folks,

 

Just wanted to send a quick note that Ivan and I have updated the public working draft.[1] Our last draft was way back in August, and we’ve since removed the infoset, so it’s been a priority for a while now to sync up the public draft with our ongoing work. Now that we’ve worked through a number of the other issues raised at TPAC, and the preliminary work on the table of contents algorithm is also wrapped up, it was the perfect time to get a new draft out before the holidays. 

 

 

I wholeheartedly support publishing a new working draft. But doesn't W3C process require that we have a working group resolution first? See https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/#revised-wd

 

> To publish a revision of a Working draft, a Working Group: 

> * must record the group's decision to request publication. Consensus is not required, as this is a procedural step,…

 

Dave (my mom is a lawyer, so I get annoying like this sometimes...)