Errata and Edited Recommendation

Hello Public-w3process,

This comment relates to publishing an edited recommendation

I am concerned that the current text might be interpreted in a way
that leads to significant delay in the publication of Edited

Consider the following situation: a WG has dealt with 100 errata
items, which all have tests and an implementation report that shows
implementors are on board with the changes. They plan to publish an
Edited Rec on Tuesday. On Monday a new errata item is opened. Lets
assume it is non trivial and generates substantial discussion about
whether it is actually an error and if so, the best way to fix it.

Now consider the current wording from 7.4.5 Publication of a W3C

> To publish an Edited Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation, a Working Group

>    must republish the document, identifying it as the basis of a Request for Recommendation.
>    must show that the document has received wide review
>    should document known implementation.
>    should address all errata.

Its a SHOULD, but I can see groups interpreting that as 'the errata
queue must be empty' so another three months goes by while they deal
with that one erratum, make tests, get passes. Meanwhile another
erratum shows up and so on.

Perhaps the following text would help? Not sure but its a start,
suggestions welcome.

>   should either address all errata, or be published with a non-empty
>   errata list for those items still under discussion or awaiting
>   testing and implementation.

I would rather see the latest edited Recommendation roll in all the
stable, tested errata and have a non-empty errata list, rather than
the latest Edited Recommendation be years old and only make sense to
those people who can carry around large diff documents in their head
pertaining to all the stuff you need to "just know" about.

Best regards,

Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 19:12:00 UTC