Re: Some thoughts on a new publication approach

On Monday, October 21, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:

> 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.

Yep.  
> 
> 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.

Agreed. This makes the ED is redundant. 

> > > 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.

I did, sorry for the ambiguity. 
 
> > > 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.
Agree. Lawyer Call should be immutable.  
> 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 probs. 
> > > 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.
> 

Would be so happy if this happened in the next decade :) I wonder how this aligns with the work Charles is doing on the Process rewrite?

Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 19:38:35 UTC