RE: Action-77, Action-80, Action-84 (was RE: agenda for today's policy editors call

I agree with Frederick's approach. Issues should only be raised if they
are not editorial.   

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Frederick Hirsch
> Sent: Tuesday, Nov 28, 2006 6:39 AM
> To: ext Maryann Hondo
> Cc: Frederick Hirsch; Asir Vedamuthu; 
> public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org; public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Action-77, Action-80, Action-84 (was RE: agenda 
> for today's policy editors call
> 
> 
> Editorial pass means review and correction of wording, grammar, and  
> style (e.g. avoid passive voice where possible etc), changing which  
> to that, etc. Editorial...
> 
> Here is an example of a change I might make without raising 
> an issue,  
> and for which I think it is stupid to devote committee time (from  
> older draft, I have to review your changes - do you have a red-line,  
> or is that the red-line Asir generated?)
> 
> Change "WS-Policy Specification defines" to "The WS-Policy  
> Specification defines"
> 
> Here is another
> 
> "domains could exploit and then allow" => "domain assertion authors  
> can use and then allow"
> 
> I was planning to improve grammar and wording as part of an 
> editorial  
> pass, but cannot if I have to raise an issue for each minor wording  
> change. I thought it would make the document better.
> 
> I will raise an issue for anything that might require committee  
> agreement, however, I don't want to waste committee time on purely  
> editorial issues, nor mine in raising an issue for every 
> wording change.
> 
> regards, Frederick
> 
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
> 
> 
> On Nov 28, 2006, at 9:07 AM, ext Maryann Hondo wrote:
> 
> >
> > Asir,
> > so let me see if I understand what you are questioning....
> > I did assume that the action item I took ( 77) covered the 
> items d-h.
> >
> > I think Frederick has offered (as we have done in the past) to  
> > "review" my changes
> > for readability. When I took previous actions, either Toufic or  
> > Dave looked at the proposed changes,
> > and gave feedback.  I would assume that Frederick will do the  
> > same.  Frederick, it has been our
> > process to have one person do the actual changes, so I think this  
> > is why Asir is asking these questions.
> >
> > For anything not "editorial" I would think we would need to 
> open an  
> > issue and have
> > it reviewed and assigned to the editorial team.
> >
> > Frederick,
> > is that your understanding? or did you have more substantive  
> > changes in mind? and if so,
> > were you planning to open issues for these?  It has been our  
> > process to have the editors take
> > actions that the working group has agreed to.  Does that 
> make sense  
> > to everyone?
> >
> > Maryann
> >
> > FYI.... Frederick I will need to correct something I did in the  
> > document and just want to make sure that
> > we don't collide in any editing attempts. Asir has pointed 
> out that  
> > section 4.4.8 belongs in the Primer, not in
> > the guidelines although I think a pointer to the primer should be  
> > in the guidelines doc.
> >
> >
> >
> > Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
> > Sent by: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
> > 11/21/2006 08:25 PM
> >
> > To
> > Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, Maryann 
> Hondo/Austin/ 
> > IBM@IBMUS
> > cc
> > <public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org>
> > Subject
> > Action-77, Action-80, Action-84 (was RE: agenda for today's policy  
> > editors call
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On the tracker, there are three actions for implementing the  
> > resolution
> > for issue 3792: 77, 80 and 84.
> >
> > Issue 3792 [1] resolution is as follows:
> >
> > Primer
> > a) Retain Section 4.2 (fold into section 3)
> > b) Retain Section 4.4.8 (fold into section 3)
> > c) Drop section 4
> >
> > Guidelines
> > d) Absorb Section 4.3, Primer
> > e) Absorb Section 4.5, Primer, as a new section (lead-in or 
> follow-on)
> > f) Blend in contents from Section 4 and 4.1, Primer
> > g) Use the style of guidance for designing assertions from Section  
> > 4.4,
> > Primer (for instance, enumerate the set of design questions)
> > h) Use forward pointers to show where the answers can be found for  
> > these
> > design questions.
> >
> > Action-80 [2] covers items a)-c).
> > Action-77 [3] covers items d)-h).
> >
> > I assume that any proposed new content or proposed changes 
> to existing
> > content will embark the natural path: commentator opens a 
> WG issue and
> > proposes a resolution, WG discusses and resolves the issue, WG  
> > adopts a
> > resolution, editors open a corresponding editorial action (s) ...
> >
> > >I can take an editorial pass on the guidelines
> >
> > What is an editorial pass?
> >
> > >I think it is simplest to update with my editorial suggestions
> >
> > Are there any e-mails to the WG that describe these editorial (or
> > substantial) suggestions? Or, are there any related WG issues?
> >
> > It is not clear what is the intent for the third action, Action-84  
> > [4].
> > Are we trying to split items d)-h) into two actions? If 
> positive, what
> > is the split?
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3792#c2
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/80
> > [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/77
> > [4] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/84
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Asir S Vedamuthu
> > Microsoft Corporation
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick
> > Hirsch
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 9:10 AM
> > To: ext Maryann Hondo
> > Cc: Frederick Hirsch; public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: agenda for today's policy editors call
> >
> >
> > I can take an editorial pass on the guidelines, the week after next.
> > Next week I will be on vacation and unavailable.
> >
> > I think it is simplest to update with my editorial suggestions as
> > well as other agreed changes and then share that revision. 
> It is more
> > work to write up the suggestions than to edit.
> >
> > Editors can then review the redline, and I can then update with
> > additional changes as needed.
> >
> > Will this work?
> >
> > regards, Frederick
> >
> > Frederick Hirsch
> > Nokia
> >
> >
> > On Nov 15, 2006, at 11:17 AM, ext Maryann Hondo wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I believe its my turn to chair the editors meeting since I was
> > > scribe last week.
> > >
> > > Welcome to Fred & Umit.
> > > We have generally followed a rotation pattern .....we can review
> > > this on the call.
> > >
> > >
> > > So,
> > >
> > > The primary topic we need to cover is the plan for getting the
> > > Guidelines and Primer documents to the working group.
> > >
> > >
> > > Logistics:
> > > Duration: 1hour -  2pm-3pm Eastern
> > > Dial-in: See http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/policy/editors#meetings
> > >
> > > Zakim------- The code is 3348 (617-761-6200)
> > > IRC----------------#ws-policy-eds
> > >
> > >
> > > Proposed Agenda:
> > >
> > > 1. Administrative
> > >
> > >
> > > review the rotation.....add in umit & fred
> > >
> > >     a. This week's arrangements:
> > >        Chair -Maryann
> > >        Scribe - ??
> > >        Regrets:
> > >
> > >
> > >   b.Editorial Team Report: will be delivered by Dave O (yes?)
> > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy-eds/2006Nov/
> > > 0051.html
> > >
> > >   c. Last call's Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2006/11/09-ws-policy-
> > > eds-minutes.html
> > >
> > > 2. Open Editors Action Items (status Review):
> > > http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/open
> > >
> > > 3.The primary topic we need to cover is the plan for getting the
> > > Guidelines and Primer documents to the working group.
> > > 4. NEW Editorial Actions from this week's WG Conference Call
> > >
> > > 5. AOB?
> > >
> > > Maryann
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2006 19:10:42 UTC