Re: attention -- WG approval of 1.0 strategy

Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 16:21 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
>> Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 15:19 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
>>>> On Monday, September 10, 2007, 5:51:47 PM, Lofton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LH> To summarize the below-linked minutes, our recommended strategy is to get
>>>> LH> 4-week W3C/public review and publish the approved 1.0 errata document, but
>>>> LH> to skip the hassle of republishing an entire new WebCGM 1.0 Third Release
>>>> LH> document (Edited Recommendation).
>>>>
>>>>> Today's minutes:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/Minutes/2007/08/30-webcgm-minutes.html
>>>> I heard that the 'approved errata' option was being removed due to not being used. i have copied Ian Jacobs for an authoritative statement on whether that can still be used or not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ian, this is a publicly archived list.
>>> The option still exists; we have not yet modified the Process Document.
>>> We plan to propose to the AC to remove that option (as it has not been
>>> used).
>> So how should we process here ?
>>
>> We have currently a draft errata page approved by the WebCGM WG.
>> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2007/errata-10/WebCGM10-errata-20070621
>>
>> We should have a 4-week W3C/public review ?
>> How is such reviewed organized, What is the prcess ? (I have never done 
>> this for SMIL). To which Mailing list this review request should be sent ?
> 
> We have not done this before, so I would need to look into this.

As you write and as I am aware, most WG do not go through this errata 
review (I could not find any errata review process for it). I request 
that the WebCGM does not go into this review and publishes its errata at 
final destination.



> 
>> Once it is reviewed we should publish it at its final destination
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/WebCGM10-errata.html
>>
>> Can we just skip the 4-week W3C/public review as most of the W3C Groups 
>> seem to proceed and publish it at its final destination
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/WebCGM10-errata.html
> 
> If you skip the review, then you're not using the process to make
> then normative.

How do other groups publish their errata ?


> 
>>> I see above "to skip the hassle of republishing an entire new WebCGM 1.0
>>> Third Release document" Please note that the process for approved
>>> corrections does require publication within 6 months. Can the group
>>> confirm here their intention to publish within 6 months after
>>> the end of the formal review period?
>> The WebCGM WG does not plan to publish a third release of WebCGM 1.0.
> 
> Then it is inappropriate to use the process that expects such a
> publication [1]:
> 
>   "In order for the corrections to remain normative, the Working Group
>    MUST incorporate them into an edited Recommendation."
> 
> As a reminder, the purpose of this piece of process was only to postpone
> publication, not eliminate the need for it.


SMIL 1.0 has an errata page and there was no republication as edited 
Recommendation for years and I am sure there are a lot of W3C documents 
in the same case.

Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2007 15:28:37 UTC