- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:07:21 +0000
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: ext Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On Wednesday, 21 March 2012 at 11:51, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 3/20/12 4:48 PM, ext Carr, Wayne wrote: > > Proposal: For WGs that have public editor's drafts, put the disclosure notice in the Editor's draft and put the Editor's draft on the TR page. Don't publish regular formal heartbeat drafts. Just publish formal versioned drafts for the required stages (First Draft, LC, CR, PR, REC). Also, provide access to the editor's drafts under source control so people can look at it at a particular date if they need to. > > Isn't this already the case for WGs that include a link to the Editor's > Draft in the spec header and don't enforce heartbeat pubs just for the > sake of it? No. At least in my case, the requirements are practical: I always want to be looking at the latest and greatest and not some stale version on /TR/ (this keeps biting me when I Google and get the wrong version!). An ordinary outdated WD on TR is unhelpful. > If a WG does want to publish intermediate WDs (i.e. WDs between FPWD and > LCWD) on /TR/, I don't think the process should prohibit it. > Certainly not… but we shouldn't need to "publish" anything (i.e., go through the publication cycle). The latest and greatest ED should just be there on /TR/ mirroring what is on Mercurial or CVS. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 12:08:03 UTC