- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:52:47 +0400
- To: "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: public-w3process@w3.org, "Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker" <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 22:26:21 +0400, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote: > > On Dec 13, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile > <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > >> On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:11:36 +0400, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote: > > [snip] > >>> By that rationale, the requirement would be: The WG should do it. But >>> if they don't, or if there is no WG, the Team MUST do it." >> >> Yes. >> >>> Even if making Team responsible adds some degree of enforceability, it >>> is not clear to me that republication as a NOTE is critical. >>> It's a good practice. But unfortunately it does not happen all the >>> time. And it does not seem to create big issues when it does not >>> happen. I guess that's why I am not yet convinced it should be a MUST. >> >> I do see it create issues in communities who are fairly disconnected >> from W3C (often by language as well as what they do), and who pick up a >> latest working draft that is waaay out of date and assume it is a real >> requirement. This is essentially the same argument that others have >> advanced in favour of scrapping TR for "living documents" (which I >> don't think is the right solution), and they have apparently seen it in >> different places. >> >> If you propose to maintain an archive of globally-relevant technical >> work for decades (and you apparently do) I think it does behoove you to >> provide a slightly higher level of care than "oh, we just abandoned >> that stuff and left it lying in the corner as is - hopefully not many >> people will find it unless they understand the complete context of what >> happened in the 14 years since". >> >> Republishing something as a Note isn't a big deal (I hope - otherwise >> what needs to be fixed is the publication process, because that is one >> of the most central parts of what W3C does). Change the status, date, >> stylesheet and you're done. It could probably even be automated. >> >> I think it would be well worth the small cost if W3C took this >> seriously as a responsibility instead of regarding it as an optional >> bit of niceness. > > > We'll want to be sure W3M is aware of this request since it imposes a > resource allocation commitment (however small). Indeed. (Vanishingly, I hope). Given that at least the CEO and the COO were in the previous discussion, and the COO was taking an active part, I presume they are sufficiently aware of the commitment required. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 10:53:19 UTC