W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > September 2016

fixing process regression related to typo fixes

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 17:28:06 -0700
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <20160901002806.GA4119@pescadero.dbaron.org>
Given the call for comments [1] on the Process 2016, I wanted to
re-raise an issue that has been raised here before:
in the hopes that it could be addressed in Process 2016.

This was a regression in Process 2014 (links to relevant changeset
and issue are in the email above) that changed the process to
require that typo fixes or other _Editorial changes_ to W3C
Recommendations go through Proposed Recommendation or Proposed
Edited Recommendation rather than just being able to be published.

It would be good to revert to the 2005 state in which working groups
can make editorial changes to recommendations without going through
PR and an AC vote to do so.


[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2016JulSep/0016.html

𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                          https://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
             Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
             What I was walling in or walling out,
             And to whom I was like to give offense.
               - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)

attached mail follows:

We have 4 classes of changes:
   1. Formatting
   2. Editorial (no potential effects on conformance)
   3. Substantive (may affect conformance) but not new features
   4. New features

In the 2005 Process, class 1 & 2 changes could be made to a REC by
merely republishing it (as REC). In the 2014 Process, class 2
editorial changes require cycling through PR.

   Old - http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-modify
   New - http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#revised-rec

Here is the changeset that made this change:
Here is the issue cited in the changeset log:
According to the issue, the changes were supposedly editorial, and
there was no discussion of the justification for or impact of adding
this extra PR cycle.

Since I don't see any reason to make this more complicated than it
was in the 2014 Process, I would like to see this change reverted.


Received on Thursday, 1 September 2016 00:28:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:40 UTC