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

On 9/12/14 2:06 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
> On September 12, 2014 at 10:49:44 AM, David (Standards) Singer
> (singer@apple.com) 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.
>
> 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.

+1

I do think it is worth exploring the notion that Marcos is describing of 
eliminating the concept (or at least the primacy) of the notion of an 
"editor".

Effectively, any fork (on github or elsewhere) is a branch, and can be 
produced by literally anybody, either as an individual or in groups. 
There should be a way to easily produce documents for such feature branches.

It is also worth mentioning that github makes it very easy to revert a 
commit so if a change that is pulled in to the WG's WD later turns out 
to be controversial, it can be quickly removed - perhaps permanently or 
until the discussions are complete.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Saturday, 13 September 2014 01:29:23 UTC