ISSUE-96: Should there be clear requirements on maintaining errata?
Errata Pages
Should there be clear requirements on maintaining errata?
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Document life cycle (pre 2014 chapter 7, now chapter 6)
- Raised by:
- Charles 'chaals' (McCathie) Nevile
- Opened on:
- 2014-04-23
- Description:
- In Liam Quin's review of chapter 7 it was noted that there are no clear requirements for where and how errata should be maintained, nor whom should actually be notified in practice and how.
Should there be a team-maintained document a la Pubrules, or further requirements in this chapter, in order to clarify where people can expect to find the requirements at any given time? - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: Agenda Process Task Force Telcon on 14 October (from chaals@yandex-team.ru on 2014-10-14)
- Time for Process Document Chapter 7 Task Force meeting on next Monday, 28 April (from szilles@adobe.com on 2014-04-24)
- Re: Feedback from Liam Quin - Fwd: Re: Staff contacts review of draft Chapter 7 revision (from chaals@yandex-team.ru on 2014-04-23)
- Update on Process Document Chapter 7 Task Force meeting on next Monday, 28 April (from szilles@adobe.com on 2014-04-23)
- w3process-ISSUE-96 (Errata Pages): Should there be clear requirements on maintaining errata? [Document life cycle (ch 7)] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2014-04-23)
Related notes:
see also ISSUE-141
Charles 'chaals' (McCathie) Nevile, 14 Oct 2014, 09:25:40Closed as a duplicate of ISSUE-141 (with a reference here where there are links that are not recorded on that issue)
Charles 'chaals' (McCathie) Nevile, 11 Jan 2015, 15:50:44Display change log
