- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 18:49:16 -0500
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
On 02/08/2015 06:47 PM, fantasai wrote: > On 01/27/2015 01:39 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote: >> All, >> >> Work on Process 2015 is reaching an inflection point. Most of the work projected for 2015 has been completed and has been >> incorporated in the draft. To continue to move forward, the Advisory Board has schedule a significant review of the proposed >> document on February 12^th at its upcoming Advisory Board face-to-face meeting. If you have concerns about the current >> document, it would be good to raise those on this list prior to that meeting. > > My concern about the current document is that it is impossible to make > editorial changes to a REC in place. > > The 2005 Process requirements for editorial changes: > # The first two classes of change [No changes to text content AND > # Corrections that do not affect conformance] require no technical > # review of the proposed changes, although a Working Group MAY > # issue a Call for Review. The modified Recommendation is published > # according to the Team's requirements, including Publication Rules [PUB31]. > > The 2015 Process requirements for editorial changes: > # Editorial changes to a Recommendation require no technical review > # of the proposed changes. A Working Group may request publication > # of a Proposed Recommendation or W3C may publish a Proposed > # Recommendation to make this class of change without passing through > # earlier maturity levels. Such publications may be called a Proposed > # Edited Recommendation. > > I consider this a regression in the W3C Process and would like the 2005 > process for class #1 and class #2 updates to REC documents reinstated. > > Thanks for your consideration. p.s. See also review comment sent earlier at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Oct/0143.html ~fantasai
Received on Sunday, 8 February 2015 23:49:46 UTC