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 15:43 , Stephen Zilles <> wrote:
>> I think we only need two classes of document here:  editor's drafts (which
>> represent the editors' best efforts) and WG working drafts (which represent the
>> WG's 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, that's up to them.
> [SZ] I used to think the same as you. The Editors, however, think differently. They (and I too, now) want the documents that Search Engines find to be the most up-to-date documents that make sense. These are often editors drafts and it does not always make sense to go thru the process of obtaining WG approval to post them on TR, even if you visualize a 24 hour CfC ballot to achieve approval. At various times, the edits come on a daily basis, but these are most often implementing a changes that have been approved, in principle, if not in detail, by the WG. With good editors, these changes are likely to get either approval or comments almost immediately. It was having the TR pages have documents that are most correct that caused me to suggest two kinds of TR document.

Why does something need to be a TR for it to be the ‘top hit’ on a search, or the preferred ‘bleeding edge’?

Indeed, I am not sure how we control it, but under the supposition we can influence it, surely we should influence searches for a work-in-progress to give you a quick summary in preference order (which could also be auto-generated):

* Most recent editor’s draft here
* Most recent working group reviewed draft here
* Most recent document with a formal IPR status is the CR/PR here
  * for which there are errata here

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Saturday, 13 September 2014 00:08:34 UTC