- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:24:25 +0200
- To: "Charles McCathie Nevile" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- CC: public-w3process@w3.org
Hello Charles, Thursday, October 10, 2013, 1:19:42 AM, you wrote: > 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> Okay. I would say that it doesn't add a should; it divides a "should if A or B" into "should if A" and "should if B". It does add a MAY, though. > 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. >>> >>> >> >> -- Best regards, Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 23:24:26 UTC