This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
(Derived from originally http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1061) I don't agree with a blanket statement that documents for which conformance is not an issue should have a conformance clause that explains why it doesn't need a conformance clause. Not only is there the obvious circular contradiction, but the only justification for such a statement would be if there might be confusion about it. For example, since the QA Handbook (for example) begins by saying that it's non-normative, there's no need for that document to belabor the point. Perhaps it might say "Documents for which conformance is not an issue may choose to include a statement explaining the lack of a conformance clause, if there might be confusion around that point." though personally, I think even that's saying too much.
The Working Group disagrees, based on past experiences where the unclear status of whether a technical report was normative or not, and whether one could conform to it or not, caused significant confusion as to the status of the said document.
setting version to LC in case of future use