RE: Put Editor's draft on TR page, not heartbeat formal publications -> RE: Evaluating policies; pubrules

There is a lot of concern about odd bits popping up in editor's drafts.  One possible solution is better labeling of content.  Like labeling random stuff that no one has approved as "proposed, no consensus"  Then it could be in without anyone thinking the WG approves it.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 2:45 PM
>To: public-w3process@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Put Editor's draft on TR page, not heartbeat formal publications ->
>RE: Evaluating policies; pubrules
>
>On 03/20/2012 01:48 PM, Carr, Wayne wrote:
>> The regular TR heartbeat Working Drafts are often useless at best since they're
>so often out of date with where the WG is with the Editor's draft.  They also
>confuse people who don't know to look at the more recent editor's draft.
>Publishing them more regularly seems like it would involve too much overhead.
>>
>> 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.
>
>I would rather not do this, but I also don't want the current process either.
>This is because I feel there's usefulness in having an editor's draft that is scratch
>space, that isn't official, and that we can use to work out exact edits together in
>public.
>
>I also think the current system is horribly broken, because the /TR copy is often so
>outdated as to be useless, and everybody is referring to editor's drafts as if
>they're the official thing... which for many WGs, due to the /TR publishing
>overhead, they effectively are!
>
>So I'm in favor of having live-editable drafts on /TR/shortname. But I think the
>editor and the WG should be given the ability to choose which changesets are
>published to /TR and which aren't. If I'm halfway through rewriting a section, I
>don't want to push that to /TR. But I want it public so that the people I'm
>rewriting it with or in response to can review what I'm doing.
>
>I also don't want to completely scrap the dated-snapshot system, since I think it's
>useful to publish them periodically -- to show changes in a consolidated fashion
>and to accommodate people who want to review drafts in periodic cycles.
>I take advantage of the snapshotting myself for modules I'm not intimately
>involved with (and in some cases even ones I am!)
>
>~fantasai

Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 23:08:16 UTC