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

On Sep 12, 2014, at 11:06 , Marcos Caceres <> wrote:

> On September 12, 2014 at 10:49:44 AM, David (Standards) Singer ( wrote:
>> I think we only need two classes of document here: editorís drafts  
>> (which represent the editorsí best efforts) and WG working drafts  
>> (which represent the WGís consensus on where they are).
>> If a WG wants to do a cursory periodic look and approve pushes to  
>> WD, or even at certain (e.g. early) stages in the process allow  
>> an editor to push unsupervised, thatís up to them.
> If the specs are edited on GitHub, you only need a WD. This is because the group has an opportunity to review every change before it lands in the spec (when using Pull Requests). This model is very effective (IMO) because it means that no change goes into a spec without a thorough review from at least one WG member. It also lets everyone know exactly what is changing and the opportunity for reviewers to also contribute. This also means that there is no need to keep an "Editor's draft" - instead, Editors just work on feature branches which land into the WD once reviewed and approved by the relevant WG members. 

Yes, indeed, if you use generally accessible source control for the source, then the ďeditorsí draftĒ is indeed a living thing.  Then the WG just needs to decide when/whether they like what they see (at least, itís an improvement on what they previously took) and make it a WG WD.  Even easier, indeed.

Given that Git allows automated actions on commit, we could probably easily make the editorís draft automatic, as well, relieving the Man on the Clapham Omnibus from knowing anything about Git, couldnít we?

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Friday, 12 September 2014 21:08:27 UTC