- From: Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 12:16:51 +1100
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>
I also support this change. Having a "Discontinued Draft" status is a really good idea - as is the new "Draft Note" status. Clarifies things quite nicely. > On 11 Feb 2021, at 2:51 pm, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com> wrote: > > I support this change. > > I believe this will help the process for https://w3cping.github.io/privacy-threat-model/, which otherwise would need to live as just an Editor's Draft all the way until it's ready for publication as a Note. Thank you! > > Jeffrey > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 7:42 PM fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > Hello fellow spec-editors and friends! > > The Process CG is considering detangling the REC and NOTE tracks in order to > make the Process more straightforward. The specific changes we are considering > are: > > * Introduce a new, dedicated status for documents retired from > the REC track (provisionally called "Discontinued Draft > Recommendation" but we can bikeshed that), to replace usage of > Notes for that purpose. > > * Introduce a new, dedicated status to represent the optional > drafting stage of a NOTE (provisionally called "Draft Note"), > that does not invoke the Patent Policy, to replace this use of > WDs; and allow IGs to also publish them. (WD status is not > available to IGs because it invokes the Patent Policy.) > > * Remove transitions between the two tracks, except maybe the > ability to restart on the other track if the WG realizes the > document belongs on the other track. > > Problems with the current Process: > * Confusion over the status of NOTEs representing former REC-track > documents. > * Triggering Calls for Exclusions for WDs of NOTEs. > * IGs unable to use a drafting stage for NOTEs. > * Possibility of, e.g. CR->NOTE->NOTE->CR which has confusing and > unfortunate implications for patent protection of changes made > while off the REC track. > > Hesitations about the changes: > * Introduces two more possible document statuses. > > The Process CG wants to know if there's support for these changes, or if there > are concerns, so we know whether they are worth adopting for Process 2021! > > Please let us know what you think. > > Thanks~ > ~fantasai > > P.S. Anyone who cares about details is welcome to have a look at the actual > pull request: > https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/488/files > Issue & discussion, with diagrams of the Process before/after the changes: > https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/342 >
Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2021 01:17:09 UTC