Re: editors - "versions" in the WG drafts

Olivier,

Despite my earlier message -- that the non-linking of the SpecGL drafts was 
partially intentional -- I agree with most of what you said.  The 
WG-draft/editor-draft distinction and plan sorta' broke down for SpecGL 
when we started exposing weekly editor drafts for WG discussion.

I guess the rule ought to be:  if it is exposed for WG discussion, then it 
can be linked from #docs, and should back-link into the versions chain.

Announce weekly telecon discussion versions to IG?  i.e., proactively call 
attention to them?  I don't know.  I'm a bit leery of calling attention to 
(announcing) such volatile work -- document may change dramatically before 
commenter has chance to send comments.  Which could be 
frustrating.   Remember, we were posting them 2 days before telecon, with 
"@@" flags to signal telecon participants what to look at, and they were 
changing again in a couple of days (tho' not exposed for a week).  Maybe, 
if fast-changing drafts are for the purpose of QAWG meetings, they should 
be linked from #docs but announced on the WG list, and 'weekinqa' could 
point out what's happening?

We could let Kirill speak to which of the TestGL drafts he thinks should be 
linked.

Btw, there is a full set of "WG drafts" in /QA/2002/framework-20020826/, 
except a TestGL version, which we are expecting soon.  None of the 
documents is changed since May 2002 versions except for SpecGL.

Other thoughts?

-Lofton.

At 10:23 AM 8/26/02 +0900, Olivier Thereaux wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>I noticed today that we did not update the "WG draft" links (redirects,
>in fact) since the may bunch. My bad, certainly, since I've been in
>charge of updating the redirects.
>
>I think it's a pity because we didn't update these more often that the
>ones published in the TR (technical reports) space, even though there
>have been a lot of itermediary versions in QA/WG/2002/XX/.
>
>We're not hiding the WG work (e.g, the URIs for WG drafts are visible in
>the publicly archived WG list), but we're not disclosing it well. What's
>the interest of having WG drafts if (according to our commitment to work
>in public) we're not giving the "public" (ie the IG) ways to react and
>contribute in "real time"?
>
>An example of that is that the WG page shows no WG draft for test GL,
>whereas there have been a few WG drafts already.
>
>Another concern I have is about the "versions" headers in the WG drafts.
>We have a lot of dated drafts, but for most of them the "versions"
>headers are wrong (most of the time the dated draft claims to be the may
>draft...). Worse, I think, the 20020826 WG draft of the spec GL claims
>that the previous version is the may one. I think this is very bad!
>
>Don't misintepret my words, I'm not saying the editors are doing a
>bad job, I'm just thinking the importance of this headers is being
>overlooked : WG drafts, all of them, have a *major* importance to track
>the WG's work history, as much as the mail archives, if not more.
>
>Hence this proposal for action(s):
>
>- immediate action : fix all drafts between may and august, add/fix
>   "this version" and "previous version" on all of them. I volunteer to
>   do it if editors are happy with it, or you can take care of it by
>   yourself if you prefer/don't want me to mess with your drafts.
>   Editors, please answer "go ahead" "no I'll do it", or "I disagree with
>   the whole idea" (and let's discuss it...).
>
>- long-term rule : be sure to have those headers properly set for all WG
>   drafts, and be sure to update the redirections (/QA/WG/.htaccess) when
>   a new draft is done, and the table (/QA/WG/#docs) when it's a first
>   draft. You can always contact me if you don't know how to do it or
>   prefer not to do it yourself.
>
>Regards,
>--
>Olivier Thereaux - W3C
>http://www.w3.org/People/olivier | http://yoda.zoy.org

Received on Monday, 26 August 2002 19:50:03 UTC