Re: [tr] Proposed New Outline

On 11/25/13 11:45 PM, ext fantasai wrote:
> Current outline:
>  #  General requirements for Technical Reports
>  #  7.1 Maturity Levels
>  #  7.2 General Requirements for Advancement on the Recommendation Track
>  #      7.2.1 Substantive Change
>  #      7.2.2 Wide Review
>  #      7.2.3 Implementation Experience
>  #  7.3 Reviews and Review Responsibilities
>  #  7.4 Advancing a Technical Report to Recommendation
>  #      7.4.1 Working Draft
>  #          7.4.1.a First Public Working Draft
>  #          7.4.1.b Revised Public Working Drafts
>  #      7.4.2 Last Call Candidate Recommendation
>  #      7.4.3 Publication of a W3C Recommendation
>  #          7.4.3.a Publishing a Last Call Candidate Recommendation
>  #                  as a W3C Recommendation
>  #          7.4.3.b Publishing an Edited Recommendation
>  #          7.4.3.c For all W3C Recommendations
>  #  7.5 Publishing a Working Group or Interest Group Note
>  #  7.6 Modifying a W3C Recommendation
>  #      7.6.1 Errata Management
>  #      7.6.2 Classes of Changes to a Recommendation
>  #  7.7 Rescinding a W3C Recommendation
>  #  Good practices
>
> Proposed Outline:
>  | General Publication Requirements
>  | Technical Report Types
>  |   Notes vs. Recommendations
>  |   Maturity Levels
>  | Review Responsibilities
>  |   Wide Review
>  |   Implementation Experience
>  |   Classes of Changes / Substantive Changes [merge]
>  | General Transition Requirements
>  | Recommendation Track
>  |   Working Draft
>  |     First Public Working Draft
>  |     Revising Working Drafts
>  |   Candidate Recommendation
>  |     Transitioning to Candidate Recommendation
>  |     Revising Candidate Recommendations
>  |   Recommendation
>  |     Transitioning to Recommendation
>  |     Revising Recommendations
>  | Note Track
>  |   Working Draft [refer to section above for steps; here for 
> parallelism]
>  |   Group Note
>  | Ending Work on a Technical Report
>  |   Abandoning a Technical Report
>  |   Rescinding a Recommendation
>  | Further Reading
>
> What am I doing here?
>   * shor section titles; some of them are awkwardly long
>   * Defining Note vs. Recommendation up front before we start talking
>     about how to get there, so you know what you're trying to get *to*
>     while you're reading how to get there.
>   * Putting together all review requirements. Note that implementation
>     experience is a type of review, as far as we're concerned here.
>   * Combining Classes of Changes to a Recommendation with Substantive
>     Changes, because they're both trying to describe the same thing,
>     except the former has a finer breakdown.
>   * Creating parallel tracks for Note and Rec in the document structure
>   * Making keeping a Recommendation up-to-date a core part of the 
> process,
>     which it should be. Similarly added a section on revising a CR to
>     parallel revising WDs and RECs.
>
> Comments on the proposal or its intentions welcome. 

I support this change and consider it a blocker. To help with the 
tracking, I created the following issue:

   <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/59>

> If people think
> this is a worthwhile endeavor, I will start to put together exact
> changes. I think this gives a better structure to support other
> editorial improvements to the document.

Given you willingness to help, I nominate you to the Editor team, not 
only because you are willing to help but I think it's important this 
document be positioned as not just an AB effort.

I also think this doc should be moved to GitHub to encourage and 
facilitate the evolution of these processes by people beyond the 
Consortium. I created the following issue to track this:

   <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/60>

-Thanks, AB

Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2013 11:49:53 UTC