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

That particular proposal wasn't changing anything about the formal stages in TR.  It was only to use the Editor's draft on the TR page instead of periodically publishing a WG Draft.  (this was a proposal just about that - there was a different larger proposal).

As an example, the html5 draft on the html TR page [1] at this moment is dated 2011-05-25.  It will be updated soon, but the point is that now WG drafts on TR pages can be so old they're pointless to look at.  If they can't be updated say within 6 weeks, it would be better to publish the Editor's draft on that page (with any content not agreed to, including content that is significantly altered, as "recent change, to be reviewed by WG" or something like that (to avoid concerns over Editor changes not yet agreed to by the WG).

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/#tr_HTML 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Giuseppe Pascale [mailto:giuseppep@opera.com]
>Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 7:39 AM
>To: Arthur Barstow; Carr, Wayne
>Cc: Dominique Hazael-Massieux; public-w3process@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Put Editor's draft on TR page, not heartbeat formal publications ->
>RE: Evaluating policies; pubrules
>
>On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:04:24 +0100, Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> 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, it's different because the latest Editor's draft appears on the TR
>> page.  It's like instantly publishing a WG Draft on the TR page each
>> time there's a new Editor's draft.  (It could be called WG Draft
>> instead of Editor's Draft since it replaces the longer more formal
>> publication of intermediate drafts).
>>
>I'm not too familiar with the current process so could you clarify to me if your
>proposal is:
>
>A. do not have specs in /TR/ until CR stage and have an editor drafts that includes
>everything (also experimental text that was never discussed and will probably be
>changed) B. have specs in /TR/ updated very frequently but that reflects some
>discussion/agreement in the WG, while there is still somewhere else a "real"
>editor draft (on dvcs?) with text proposals up for discussion in the WG
>
>If the proposal is A, than I think that will introduce even more confusion for
>people looking at the specifications that are not part of the WG (or not part of
>W3C), so would recommend not to do it.
>If the proposal is B, than I agree it will make a lot of sense and will be useful.
>
>/g
>
>--
>Giuseppe Pascale
>TV & Connected Devices
>Opera Software

Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 15:28:44 UTC