Re: Suggested change to Revised Public Working Drafts section

Hi Chris,

I believe this change is editorial in nature. I support it.

I will integrate it in the next Editors' draft (to be published later  
tonight), so if anyone thinks it should not be made (or should be  
reverted) please speak up...

cheers

Chaals

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 20:51:50 +0200, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
>


-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 21:11:00 UTC