ISSUE-45: Is the requirement that all errata should be addressed in an edited Recommendation too strong?
fix all the erratas
Is the requirement that all errata should be addressed in an edited Recommendation too strong?
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Document life cycle (pre 2014 chapter 7, now chapter 6)
- Raised by:
- Charles 'chaals' (McCathie) Nevile
- Opened on:
- 2013-10-09
- Description:
- This issue was raised by Chris Lilley in email [1].
The basic question is whether it is important to clarify that while a group should address all errata before proposing an edited recommendation, they may propose an edited recommendation while there are outstanding errata in order to provide an improvement in the current Recommendation rather than an unnecessary dealy while the strive for perfection.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Oct/thread.html#msg21 - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: Errata and Edited Recommendation [ISSUE-45] (from chaals@yandex-team.ru on 2013-10-10)
- New Editor's draft, Chapter 7 (from chaals@yandex-team.ru on 2013-10-10)
- Re: Errata and Edited Recommendation [ISSUE-45] (from chris@w3.org on 2013-10-10)
- Re: Errata and Edited Recommendation (from chaals@yandex-team.ru on 2013-10-09)
- w3process-ISSUE-45 (fix all the erratas): Is the requirement that all errata should be addressed in an edited Recommendation too strong? [Document life cycle (ch 7)] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2013-10-09)
Related notes:
Chaals proposes to reject the proposed change as unnecessary in practice: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013Oct/0023.html
(But open to learning that it is important to state this explicitly)
Display change log