New Editor's draft, Chapter 7

Hi folks,

I published a new draft:

I have tried to make the change tracking much more explicit:

The major changes:
- I tentatively resolved ISSUE-46 by adopting the editorial split proposed  
by Chris regarding when a revised Working Draft should be published, and  
adding a should requirement that if nothing much changed the status  
explains why not.
- As noted in the introductory stuff, the AB Task Force will ask the AB to  
consider recommending the current draft as a replacement for the existing  
chapter 7.

Outstanding issues:  

There are 5 issues pending review. One is ISSUE-46 which led to the first  
change noted above. I propose to close the others (ISSUE-37, ISSUE-45 and  
ISSUE-44) without change, and believe ISSUE-2 is now addressed (in section  
7.5 on notes).

ISSUE-39 relates to the implementation of a change to the current process.  
IMHO this is primarily a matter for the W3C and Advisory Committee to sort  
out, rather than something that should go in the document itself. Ralph  
Swick has a related action item to resolve this issue :)

ISSUE-6 "Producing Recommendations when we know they need to be refined"  
is IMHO not a question for the Document Life Cycle. It does relate to  
chartering groups, and our expectations of how long they will last, and to  
our expectations for publishing schedules.

ISSUE-3 "Allow change in place in /TR" is not being formally tracked by  
the Advisory Board (effectively rejecting the idea of allowing editing of  
"Public" Drafts or Recommendations outside the defined lifecycle  
requirements). But I note that pointers to the bleeding edge drafts are  
being added to listings in the /TR page. (I am not sure what the rule is  
for which listings get a pointer, and what the pointer is - maybe someone  
here knows and can explain...).

As always, feedback is welcome.



Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex         Find more at

Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 23:56:56 UTC