[admin] Revised Proposed changes regarding references to editors' drafts

FYI, below is an updated proposal for TR Publication Rules regarding 
references to EDs and the "boilerplate" at the top of a document. If you 
have any feedback on this proposal, please send it to spec-prod @ w3.org 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[Pubrules] Revised Proposed changes regarding references to 
editors' drafts
Date: 	Wed, 3 Sep 2014 12:13:48 -0500
From: 	Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
To: 	spec-prod@w3.org Prod <spec-prod@w3.org>
CC: 	Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Marcos Caceres 

Hello spec-prod,

Several months ago I send a list of proposed changes [1] regarding references to editors' drafts from W3C specs. I received
some feedback and have revised the proposal (below). Here is an updated proposal. After the proposal are my notes on how
I handled the previous feedback, and changes to the proposal as a result. I apologize for the delay in updating the proposal.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2014AprJun/0001.html


* Provide appropriate statements about relationships between a TR
   draft and an editor's draft.
* Ensure clarity about editors and ensure they are given credit.
* Avoid publication delays.
* Reduce chances publication requests will be declined due
   to references to editors' drafts.

Proposed Guidance

* Editor names. In each document (TR draft and editor's draft)
   indicate clearly who is editing the document. The list of editors
   MAY differ between the documents.


    - The process requires at least one editor: "Every Technical
      Report published as part of the Technical Report development
      process is edited by one or more editors appointed by a Group
      Chair." The Process CG is the appropriate forum for discussing
      that requirement.

    - Pubrules already allows additional information about authors and
      contributors; here's an example: http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/

    - For TRs, the Process requires "An editor must be a participant."
      While it is possible for an editor of an editor's draft to not
      participate in a W3C group, it is important to understand any
      patent policy implications.

* The Marcomm team seeks to balance editor innovation, application of
   W3C process and patent policy requirements, and consistency and
   usefulness for readers. To avoid delays after a publication

   - Editors who wish to add features to the top of a W3C technical
     report beyond those described in the pubrules templates SHOULD
     consult with the Marcomm Team in advance.

   - Team contacts who observe consensus within a WG to publish a FPWD
     SHOULD contact the W3C Communications Team to begin to coordinate
     the publication.

* Here is RECOMMENDED language for references to an editor's draft
   (for example, from a dismissable popup designed to attract the
   reader's attention).

   - For a Working Draft: "Implementors should be aware that this
     specification is not stable and may change in ways incompatible
     with existing implementations. All implementers are invited to
     take part in group discussion. This draft captures the state of
     the specification as of the publication date. The <a>editor's
     draft</a> may include bug fixes and other changes."

   - For a Candidate Recommendation: "Implementors should be aware
     that the feature set for this specification is stable, although the
     details of those features may still change. All implementers are
     invited to take part in group discussion. This draft captures the
     state of the specification as of the publication date. The <a>editor's
     draft</a> may include bug fixes and other changes."

   - For a Recommendation: "Implementors should be aware that this is
     a stable specification suitable for implementation; please check to
     see if there are any <a>errata</a>. For information about new
     developments related to this specification, see <a>suitable

Proposed Additions to Pubrules

*  Document titles/subtitles MUST NOT include status information or
    otherwise create confusion. For example the document title must
    not include status indicators such as "draft" or "recommendation"
    or "standard."

    Note: The subhead includes the status and publication date.

    Note on checker test: we can look for some common phrases but the check won't
    be exhaustive.

* The document MAY include a link to an Editor's Draft. That link MAY
    precede the other document identifiers. The label for this link
    should be "Editor's Draft".

* A document MAY include, near the top, guidance for providing
   feedback. Any such block MUST follow the Editors block. The
   recommended title for this block is "Feedback?"

    Note on checker test: look for feedback block and verify position.

* Departures from pubrules expectations for the top of a W3C
   technical report, or text in the status section that may cause
   offense or confusion MUST be approved by the Head of W3C

Responses to comments and changes

* Art's comments:

   a) Art suggested alternative language for Working Drafts; I
      incorporated his comments into the above revision (with some
      changes). I also adjusted the language for CRs accordingly.

   b) Art asked that discussions happen transparently; I will endeavor
      to continue to use spec-prod.

   c) Art also supported the flexibility of editors to add other data;
      I think that will be an ongoing discussion to find a balance.

* Marcos' comments:

   a) Regarding dropping Editors completely, that would not be
      consistent with the process requirement.

   b) It is ok to have a link to a list of committers/contributors, so
      I've noted that.

   c) Marcos wanted the status heads-ups available as popups, which is
      consistent with the proposal, so no change here.

   d) Marcos requested more explicit indicators about types of WD.
      In April 2013 we augmented the subhead with that info:

   e) Marcos asked to be able to put Editor's Draft link before the
      other ones. I'm ok with that and added a new pubrules
      requirement to that effect.

   f) Marcos asked that we come up with an enhanced list of
      of data that people might like at the top of the document.	
      I am fine to continue that discussion, but prefer that we not
      make the other parts of the proposal depend on it.

Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447

Received on Thursday, 4 September 2014 12:41:02 UTC