- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 22:55:54 -0500
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: public-w3process@w3.org, ab@w3.org
On Jul 9, 2013, at 10:53 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote: > [I'm cc'ing the ab since you did, but I don't know if it'll go through to them.] > > On 07/09/2013 10:35 PM, Ian Jacobs wrote: >>> > >>> - Obviously the text about Errata here isn't done. I suggest we rethink this a bit more carefully. My suggestion would be get rid of the term entirely and just think about them as ISSUES raised (by anyone) against a REC. In general, these issues should quickly get to a state we might call "Community Consensus", where all the people still participating agree about how it should be handled. Note that there is often no WG, and sometimes no staff with any relevant expertise. We could try to make sure there is at least a CG, maybe. Anyway, when there is a WG, those issues on which there is Community Consensus can be approved by the AC as part of publishing a new Edition. Or maybe we could do that without a WG?? That'd be nice. (Speaking of which, Edited Recs should be in the state diagram -- Rec pointing back to LCCR, I guess?) >>> >>> > >>> > (Many people don't realize how the W3C Errata process works. The text in every single Recommendation says that the errata page "may include some normative corrections", but that's painfully misleading. By the current process, to make a correction become "normative" requires an AC vote. Ian tells me this has never happened, and that makes perfect sense, because if you're going to go to all the work of an AC vote, you might as well just do another Edition. So we tell people in every rec that this other page may include some "normative" corrections, but it *never* >>> does. Ouch. Also, it seems to me that's an abuse of the word "normative". Something is normative if it tells you what every implementation SHOULD or MUST do to be conformant. Anyone can publish a normative correction to a W3C Rec; it just doesn't have any force unless it's gone thro >>> ugh the W3C process. So what's really meant here is an "official" or "approved" correction.) >>> >> Here's what I wrote about errata in [1], with you in mind: >> >> --- >> - 7.6.1: Some people have pointed out to me recently that this text >> is problematic: "The Working Group must identify which corrections >> are normative." It becomes even more problematic now that we have >> dropped the alternative path to PER. In short: there will never be >> normative corrections in an errata page. We __could__ say: >> >> "The Working Group SHOULD identify which corrections, once formally >> incorporated into a revised Recommendation, they believe would have >> an impact on conformance." >> ---- >> >> Would that work for you? >> > > Well, it still presumes there is a WG. All the charters in my corner of W3C disband the group just about the point it goes to REC. So I think it should be a CG or a mailing list -- possibly something without a decision procedure. But otherwise, yeah, sure. Like you, I made other comments about this whole section on errata, including this one: ==== - 7.6.1: "Working Groups must track errata on an "errata page." Although that sentence appears in the current W3C Process, I believe we should change it. W3M seems to be more willing now to close groups rather than leave them open in maintenance mode. Thus, I think we will encounter more frequently a case of "no WG to maintain errata." There are also other types of groups (e.g., CGs) that could useful get into the business of maintaining errata. Proposed change to "W3C makes every effort to maintain its Recommendations, including tracking errata." === We sound more or less on the same page. Ian -- Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 03:55:55 UTC