Re: Editor's drafts on /TR/… ftw, was Re: new TR tools and editor's drafts?

On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:

> On 03/07/2013 15:39 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> > > To be fair though, in the past few years (before joining the Team)
> > > I've never had to wait more than 24h before releasing a WD.
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > And your 1 week CFCs?
>  
> I don't see the point of CfCs for WDs frankly, and when chair have often
> done without them. Other chairs may feel differently, but that's an
> issue of group organisation — it has nothing whatsoever to do with W3C
> actually.

I know… I'm just reporting from boots on the ground irrespective of W3C.   
> > > DAP had its calls on Wednesday afternoons Paris time, and we always
> > > made the Thursday publication window. Beyond the advantages in
> > > simplicity in letting groups push WDs out by themselves (if nothing
> > > else it would free up time for the webmaster to do more interesting
> > > things), it might be useful to figure out why some groups seem to
> > > need much more time than that. Not knowing those problems, it's a
> > > definite possibility that they won't go away if we add automation.
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > Here are the problems: It's all that process… having to email the
> > Chair, having to convert the spec from ED to WD and move it to a
> > separate branch on GH, wait for approval from the Chair, wait 1 week
> > for some CFC that no one ever gives a crap about because it's just a
> > WD, etc. etc. Then being frustrated that one day after you publish
> > you fix a bunch of stuff, and they you again have to go through the
> > same annoying process.
>  
>  
>  
> Aside from converting from ED to WD, which ought to be trivial (in  
> ReSpec it's just a matter of adding ?specStatus=WD to the URL and saving  
> the output) none of the above is a W3C problem. Publication requests for  
> WDs are made by the "Document Contact", a role that can be taken by the  
> editor (or in fact pretty much anyone if the group wishes so).


Again, I know it's not a "W3C problem", but I'm just telling you that it's a problem that causes delays.   

> If as an editor you want to be allowed to make publication requests on a  
> regular basis in order to keep the TR copy fresh, without consulting the  
> group, then that's definitely something that your group can agree to.

Sure, that was my original proposal as a group choice for operating mode.   
>  
> You'll still have to file webreqs, but that's not a huge hurdle (more  
> than pressing a button, but only so much).


I can't judge at this point… I'm hopeful I can have control over moving the document (or pointing some web form to a URL, which does the checks and then moves it automagically). If I have to send emails to webreq and wait, that's a deal breaker for me.    
> That leaves "moving things across branches in GH". Well, if you don't  
> like that, err, well, don't do it.

I don't have a choice :) My readers demand to see anything but the latest and greatest! I can't put a WD draft on gh-pages that then needs to sit there for up to 4 days waiting to be published. This happened with Telephony - it was ready Friday, it was supposed to go out on Tuesday - but something happened and it didn't go out until Thursday. In that time, the ED received a whole bunch of fixes.  

The ED and WD are different enough (e.g., the BIG BLUE WARNING, etc.) that it's inconvenient to have to keep merging them. And at it's not me doing the moving to TR, I don't know what actual copy of my spec the Team Contact has at any moment in time.  

So, pain. If I could just copy/paste, it avoid soooo much pain…. now imagine a one click PUT with Respec. That's the dream - lets make it happen :)   

> I'm not saying that W3C couldn't work on getting the whole process more  
> streamlined, and on ensuring that the default process that groups adopt  
> is more lightweight. But don't blame W3C for constraints that groups  
> impose on themselves of their own accord.

I don't. I promise you. I have nothing but <3 for the W3C; why else do I keep hanging around?     
> You'll get much farther by  
> changing the way in which your group operates and then showing everyone  
> else just how much more efficient you are.

But, after years, I know where the bottleneck is: it's that I can't move my own specs to TR.   
> A lot of what people call "Process" really isn't. Don't just question  
> authority; question the lore. Maybe I should make that a blog post or  
> something :)

No. You should grant Marcos write access to TR… then you can write your blog post :)   
> > With regards to CR, LC: we need to see those not as static documents,
> > but a as "phases": during the LC phase, which spans some period of
> > time, one can make fixes but the process remains in LC. The same with
> > CR - which can lead to a violation (normative change), which casts
> > you back to WD and again to the LC phase (which is locked in for some
> > period of time). It's not that hard.
>  
>  
>  
> As a rule I agree, but we do need to be very careful about what gets  
> introduced there. A feature change at those steps changes the IPR  
> commitments. While I'm all for getting as much IP into RF pools as  
> possible, the rules of the game with IP holders is that we don't get to  
> play that sort of trick once they've made a commitment. As much as I  
> dislike patents, it seems fair.
>  

I agree. But my phases proposal is much more stringent because it immediately invalidates the LC process or CR process if there is a normative change. This is much better than pretending nothing has changed for 3 months, then having to drop back to WD, and again to LC. It means that if a WG wants to enter into these critical phases, they darn better be super ready. At the same time, it allows groups to fix Editorial stuff and make clarifications as needed without needing to worry about going through another LC round - and readers always get those latest changes.

Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 14:15:02 UTC