- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 06:43:23 -0400
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 5/11/2021 3:47 PM, fantasai wrote: > On 5/11/21 1:25 AM, Jeff Jaffe wrote: >> >> On 5/10/2021 5:47 PM, David Singer wrote: >>> 3.2) Editor report: what’s holding us back from sending to the AB so >>> they can send it to the team and the AC? >> >> Before we send this to the AB for review, I recommend two steps first. >> >> 1. The Editors provide a customized diff, so the Process CG can have >> a CfC about P2021. >> >> Here is what I mean by a customized diff. Due to the reorganized >> structure, I suspect that an ordinary diff which simply show that >> everything changed and would be unusable. A customized diff would be >> an actual diff for those sections where the content actually >> changed. But for those sections that merely moved large blocks of >> text from one section number heading to another, the customized diff >> only shows that the section numbers changed, rather than showing that >> the text changed. > > I think we might actually want to forward the Process to the AB > *before* merging the editorial reorg. Sure we'll need a customized > diff document to present to the AC, but it takes a lot of time to > produce that, and I don't want to hold up the AB's substantive review > of the Process for it. I agree. It makes sense to handle the editorial reorg separately. So I guess we will do a CfC prior to the editorial reorg and then send to the AB. > > We can invite anyone in the AB who's interested in being involved in > the editorial reorg to participate in the Process CG's review of it, > which we can conduct in parallel with the AB's substantive review of > the non-editorial-reorg changes. I suspect most will defer to the > Process CG on this editorial matter, though. I agree that we can work on the editorial reorg in parallel with the AB's review of the substantive changes. Given the scope of the changes, however, I would rather call it a "restructure" rather than an "editorial reorg". If I am told that something is editorial I will often just assume that the editors got it correct and not scrutinize. Given the scope of the restructure, I feel obligated to do a fairly thorough review.
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2021 10:43:27 UTC