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

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:45:24 +0100, fantasai  
<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> 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 they're so often out of date with where the WG is with the Editor's  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 often so outdated as to be useless, and everybody is referring to  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.
>
So can this be achieved by just lowering the bar for editors draft to be  
pushed in /TR space, while still keeping editor draft as base for  
discussion and feedbacks?


> 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!)
>
automatically adding diff links to all specs would also help (some specs  
have it, but not all)

/g

> ~fantasai


-- 
Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software

Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 14:43:43 UTC