- From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:55:42 -0700
- To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5616AE1E.6010407@linux.intel.com>
On 2015-10-06 21:18, Jeff Jaffe wrote: > > > On 10/6/2015 11:50 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote: >> >> See below >> >> *From:*Jeff Jaffe [mailto:jeff@w3.org] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 06, 2015 6:20 PM >> *To:* Stephen Zilles; public-w3process@w3.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Issue-101] Replacement for the other of the diagrams >> in the Process document >> >> Steve, >> >> In CR, if there are substantial changes we stay in CR; but if there >> are very substantial changes we go back to WD. >> >> Have we defined the difference between substantial changes and very >> substantial changes? >> >> */[SZ] No, IMO it is up to the WG to decide whether the changes would >> take a document out of CR. The most obvious reason would be that >> there need to be major implementation changes and, therefore, the >> document is not really ready for implementation (the anachronistic >> definition of CR) anymore. If the changes involve implementation >> tweeks and the participants agree that they should be made, then >> those are substantive, but not “very substantive”. If you think >> putting in some text like that would be useful, it could be proposed/* >> > > I wasn't making a proposal. I was just trying to make sense of the > terms in the proposed diagram. Your explanation doesn't make it clear > enough (at least for me). It's defined in the process doc. I think the wording in the diagram is to refer to: http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#substantive-change It is 3 Corrections that do not add new features and 4 New features. Here's the section that says what happens in those cases PR for 3 and FPWD for 4. http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#revised-rec Maybe "feature modifications" or "feature tweaks" instead of substantive and "new features" instead of very substantive for the diagram ? > >> *//* >> >> */Steve Z/* >> >> >> >> Jeff >> >> On 10/5/2015 10:17 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote: >> >> A proposed, revised replacement for diagram in sections 6.7 of the 2015 Process Document >> >> http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#revised-rec >> >> is attached. >> >> >> >> Comments are welcome >> >> >> >> Steve Z >> >
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2015 17:56:12 UTC