Re: Editor's call February 22

On 21/02/2023 22:38, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 2023, at 2:13 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider 
>> <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would like to have some information on what is required for W3C 
>> publication of FPWD beyond passing the checks already in place on the 
>> GitHub repositories.   For example, is it required that all documents 
>> have sections on privacy considerations, security considerations, and 
>> internationalization considerations?
>
> Ted provided some information in a PR comment [1]
>
>> FPWD is a heartbeat action, as are all the Editors' Drafts that get 
>> published between FPWD and CR. FPWD /does/ require group consensus to 
>> publish, but there are no requirements about its /content/, which has 
>> even less weight than the content of a WG NOTE, which has almost no 
>> weight. An FPWD /could/ be pure boilerplate, or a collection of 
>> sections that entirely disagree with each other, or a bunch of 
>> Guttenberg Project or Lorem Ipsum text.
That is the process minimum.

This working group has a mature set of documents, with many interested 
readers in the community.

We haven't discussed which github issues the working group will be able 
to take up yet.

     Andy

>
>> A pointer to a document on the rules for W3C publication would also 
>> be useful.
>
> Probably mostly in the Publication Rules [2] and Process Document [3].
>
> Generally, the FPWD docs will be prepared with a planned publication 
> date and saved in the repository (for example see the snapshot for 
> rdf-canon [4]). This can be done by adding 
> `?specStatus=FPWD&pubDate=YYYY-MM-DD` to the browser and using the 
> control in the upper right to save the document as HTML, along with 
> files used directly by the finished document. Then, pass it through 
> the pubrules checker [5] and link checker [6]. This sometimes finds 
> minor problems that will need to be corrected. Generally, you can get 
> a URL for a formatted version of the spec after it’s been uploaded 
> using the raw file viewer for the Overview.html in GitHack.
>
> Most of the technical Pubrules requirements are handled by ReSpec 
> automatically based on specStatus.
>
> Once FPWD has been published, the group can decide to use Echidna for 
> subsequent updates automatically via the GitHub action we have in 
> place up until CR.
>
> Gregg
>
> [1] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-schema/pull/9#issuecomment-1437182529
> [2] https://www.w3.org/2003/05/27-pubrules
> [3] https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#first-wd
> [4] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-canon/tree/main/publication-snapshots/FPWD
> [5] https://www.w3.org/pubrules/
> [6] https://validator.w3.org/checklink
>
>> peter
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On 2/18/23 14:54, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>>>> We have an Editor’s call scheduled again for this Wednesday [1]. If 
>>>> you have items to discuss, please reply so we can build an agenda. 
>>>> Otherwise, I suggest we keep the slot and Zoom channel open for 
>>>> general discussion in order to preserve normal WG time for more 
>>>> more charter-related discussions.
>>>>
>>>> Gregg Kellogg
>>>> gregg@greggkellogg.net
>>>>
>>>> [1]https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/28b3790b-0fd4-41e3-bfd4-7deca177f6df
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>