Re: Odp: [Editors] Upcoming Editor's call

On 2/7/23 16:57, ddooss@wp.pl wrote:
> Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
> [...]
>
>     Lastly, we’ll eventually need to consider what it means to be a "Living
>     Standard”. Phillipe Le Hégret gave a presentation on this at the 2020
>     TPAC [6] and the 2021 Process Document has a section on revising
>     recommendations [7].
>
>
> I'm not a fan of the Living Standard concept. Maybe because I come from 
> circles (e.g. ISO) where the specifications had their specific versions. In 
> my opinion, "Living Standard" is a jumble of words is a bit contradictory. 
> Because the (official) standard must be discreet (yes, it is constantly 
> developing inside, but outside the users of the standard get the final 
> product). And "Living" means continuous (outside). Therefore, many questions 
> arise, e.g., what about backward compatibility? How to refer to historical 
> fragments (which are changed or deleted)? In my opinion, a discrete 
> specification versioning process makes a lot of sense. This does not mean 
> that we are to deliver a standard and not worry about it. If errors occur, 
> there should be an errata. If new features appear - great, let's make a new 
> version, e.g., according to Semantic Versioning principles [0].
>
> [0] https://semver.org/
>
> Best,
> Dominik Tomaszuk
>
I think it depends on what "Living Standard" means.  It certainly would be 
nice to have a simple mechanism to fix tyops in the recommendations.  It also 
would be nice to have a not-so-simple mechanism to fix errors in the 
recommendations.  But if "Living Standard" means that it is easy to add things 
to the recommendations outside of a WG then I'm not going to be on board.


peter