- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 08:27:52 -0400
- To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "David (Standards) Singer" <singer@apple.com>
- CC: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 9/12/14, 5:27 AM, Stephen Zilles wrote: > Is it this last piece that you find overly burdensome? _I_ am not finding anything overly burdensome personally, because I am not myself trying to issue errata. I am trying to get working groups to issue errata, and my observation is that they generally push back on this pretty strenuously. My conclusion is that they perceive some part of the errata-issuing process to be overly burdensome. You'd have to ask them what exactly the burdensome part is and how to make it less burdensome. If you want me to speculate past what I can actually observe, I believe it's simply a matter of priorities and incentives. Making sure errata happen expeditiously is a top priority for WHATWG specs (in fact a basic premise of the whole "living specification" setup), but a complete non-priority for W3C ones. As far as I can tell, there are no incentives inside the W3C process or organization for actually issuing errata, so it's just perceived as extra work for no benefit. -Boris
Received on Friday, 12 September 2014 12:28:19 UTC