- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 20:51:50 +0200
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
Hello Public-w3process, This is a comment on https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/tr.html Editors' Draft 3 October 2013 It is an editorial suggestion which would not be a substantive change but would I think set expectations more clearly. In section 7.4.1b Revised Public Working Drafts https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/tr.html#revised-wd current text "A Working Group should publish a Working Draft to the W3C Technical Reports page every 6 months, or sooner when there have been significant changes to the document that would benefit from review from beyond the Working Group. suggested text "A Working Group should publish a Working Draft to the W3C Technical Reports page when there have been significant changes to the document that would benefit from review from beyond the Working Group. If 6 months have elapsed without changes, a Working Draft should also be published. In that case the status may indicate reasons for lack of change." The suggested wording emphasizes publication as a result of significant change, rather than a 6 month heartbeat. Technical rather than procedural emphasis. It also adds a suggestion to explain why a draft has not changed at all (changes, not just significant changes) in six months. -- Best regards, Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 18:51:51 UTC