- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:19:42 +0200
- To: public-w3process@w3.org, "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>, "Charles McCathie Nevile" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 23:10:31 +0200, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > I believe this change is editorial in nature. I support it. No it isn't. It adds a "should" reequirement. I raised ISSUE-46 to track it: <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/46> I still support it, and have speculatively implemented it in the new draft I will publish very shortly. cheers Chaals > 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 23:20:14 UTC