Re: Some thoughts on a new publication approach

On 21/10/2013 21:16 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On Monday, October 21, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> I think that that complicates things more than we actually need.
>> When entering LC, you produce a snapshot that is the LC draft and
>> will never change, ever.
>
> Fine, so long as this document is hidden away somewhere where only
> lawyers can get to it. I.e., lets get the LC nonsense off TR.

That's what snapshots *are*. They aren't hidden, but they're rarely if 
ever what you get from /TR/shortname/. Once generated they get stored 
into /FPWD/shortname-YYYYMMDD/, /LC/shortname-YYYYMMDD/, 
/REC/shortname-YYYYMMDD (you get the idea) and must be linked to from 
the TR draft. But that's it.

Thinking about it, things in TR should not use the red ED template but 
just the WD template. Otherwise we'll have red all the time.

>> This triggers the LC exclusion period. Then the editor keeps
>> editing as she wants to.
>
> That's fine so long as this still appears on TR, right?

If by this you mean the draft being edited, then yes.

>> At the next transition (currently CR, but that could change too) we
>> check to see what changes were made. If they are only editorial,
>> then the transition can proceed. Otherwise, a new LC snapshot needs
>> to be triggered (which I believe pushes the potential Rec off by
>> 150 days).
>
> Exactly. What I was trying to point out was that right now, LC docs
> and friends sit on /TR/ and ruin it for everyone else. Having things
> as a "phase" indicates to the reader some degree of maturity and what
> changes to expect during this period (and that the document is live).
> Maybe a link at the very bottom of the document to the "Lawyer Call"
> document can be added in <small> :)

The LC document must never change at all, that's a lot simpler. If the 
editor wants to convey to people reading the draft that it is being 
stabilised rather than getting new features, that can be done. A good 
way of doing that would be to have an updated boilerplate that made 
things clear. But I want to keep that discussion completely separate 
(and I think that if it comes after a change to how publications are 
handled, it will actually be simpler).

>> No need for phases or special roles for people, let alone pull
>> requests (more of a GitHub concept, though it can be made to work
>> elsewhere).
>
> Sure. Though no need to follow my exact process (or bind it to GH) -
> but the process of having someone oversee the IPR critical phases
> stands.

The W3C Team is solely in control of decreeing something a snapshot (at 
any degree). That's where IPR oversight takes place. Everything else is 
basically just people writing drafts. It's the same protection as today, 
but gotten out of the face of the people actually getting the work done.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 19:33:34 UTC