- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:16:42 +0100
- To: public-w3process@w3.org, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
(created ISSUE-2 for this) On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:43:34 +0100, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 11/16/2011 10:23 AM, Carr, Wayne wrote: >> There are some drafts people bring up to me time after time that are >> dead, but no one knows. Even if it says something on a WG wiki, if it >> isn't in the draft people aren't going to know. >> >> One possibility could be if a draft misses it's heartbeat publication >> by x months, it automatically gets marked prominently in the status >> section as not being currently worked on. > For auto-marking... I think 3 months is too short. We'd have a lot > of actively-edited CSS drafts get marked as abandoned that way. > While some of our modules should be updated and pushed to /TR more > often than they are, in other cases the draft is just being edited > in slower cycles and doesn't need to be republished every 3 months. > A year would be better; the WG should be able to request Unmaintained > status sooner, but as an automatic thing I think a longer period > of time is better. A year seems about right to me for automatic marking. > For CR-level specs, the period should be even longer (multiple years), > since in many cases they are not being updated because there are no > changes to make, only implementations and testcases to build. I'd rather not allow more than 2 years for something that is still supposedly moving forward. Even if the requirement is just to "touch" the document. >> If a draft is waiting for something else there could be a prominent >> note in the status section (or even above it) that says what it is >> waiting for, with periodic updates that they are still waiting. yup. >> If the status isn't being updated, it could be marked dormant and >> finally something like withdrawn (and marked in the same way if the WG >> decides to drop it). > > +1 to having an Unmaintained status. We should also be able to mark > RECs as Unmaintained. CSS1 and HTML4, for example, are not getting > errata anymore. Indeed. But they are historically interesting documents - just throwing them away, besides being unlike the way W3C does stuff, strikes me as a bad idea. cheers -- Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2011 07:17:27 UTC