Re: w3process-ISSUE-126 (autoWDpublish): Automatic WD publishing tool may change the W3C center of gravity around WGs [Process Document]

There is no such "permanent right", as the WG (or the chair, or the team
contact) could quickly remove an editor's assignment to that role (and
their authorization to make such edits).

Sure, it is possible in this arrangement for an editor to publish changes
that are not approved by the WG.  I would expect that editors to manage
this appropriately; however, continuing with the system we have today has
simply moved the bulk of specs I deal with to a system where the editor's
draft is the place to go, because publishing /TR/ docs is needless
paperwork.  (aka "Do I really care enough if my spec lives in /TR/ to jump
through the same set of hoops regularly?")

Note that feel strongly that there is a responsibility that an Editor takes
on, and as a spec goes to Last Call and beyond the consensus from the group
should be stronger and stronger; but roadblocks we put in the way of
improving the timeliness of /TR/ are not helpful.

Regardless, the important part is a clear responsibility of the Editor as
the spec approachs LC (and clear path of escalation if the Editor "goes
rogue").  I believe this process has that.

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Daniel Glazman <> wrote:

> On 10/09/2014 21:45, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
> >> If an editor 'goes rogue' and starts publishing what appear to be WG
> WDs without the WG agreement, I rather think their life as an editor may be
> short,
> >
> > +1.  I think Chairs have the tools they need to handle this situation.
> Plus with the one-click publish tool, an editor can't hold the chair
> hostage by saying "the publication process is so complex, it will take you
> forever to find a replacement if you fire me" :-)
> I don't think these two answers quite address the concern, sorry: the
> concern is to see a given WG allow one editor a permanent right to
> publish his Editor's Draft as a WD. That's a de facto 'living WD' and
> the WG is not in charge of the publication any more. All of that is
> technically possible and I think it _will_ happen in the future if that
> posssibility is open.
> Sorry, but I am very, very far from excited by the potential
> side-effect of that tool...
> </Daniel>

Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 10:24:17 UTC