Re: Issue-159 ACTION REQUIRED: Call for Consensus: Proposed Process Change Regarding the definition of "Editorial Change"

On 2015-04-07 11:34, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
> This is a Call for Consensus to update the Process 2015 Draft with a 
> change to Section 7.2.5, item 2. “Corrections that do not affect 
> conformance”. (This item defines one of the classes of changes to a 
> document.)
>
> Responses to this call are due by Close of Business on 12 April 2015 
> (one week). Please send a reply to this message (I agree, I disagree, 
> I abstain) to register your opinion. The CG rules do NOT assume that a 
> lack of reply is agreement with the proposal. (See
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jun/0160.html
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jun/0163.html )
>
> If you wish to discuss the proposed change, please create a new thread 
> for that discussion (so that “votes” are easily separated from 
> “discussion”).
>
> The proposed change
>
> The existing Draft Process 2015 text is,
>
> “2. Corrections that do not affect conformance
>
> Editorial changes or clarifications that do not change the technical 
> content of the specification.”
>
> The proposed replacement text is,
>
> “2. Corrections that do not affect conformance
>
> Changes that reasonable implementers would not interpret as changing 
> architectural or interoperability requirements or their 
> implementation.  Changes which resolve ambiguities in the 
> specification are considered to change (by clarification) the 
> implementation requirements and do not fall into this class. Examples 
> of changes in this class are correcting non-normative code examples 
> where the code clearly conflicts with normative requirements, 
> clarifying informative use cases or other non-normative text, fixing 
> typos or grammatical errors where the change does not change 
> implementation requirements. If there is any doubt as to whether 
> requirements are changed, such changes do not belong to this class.”
>
> Rationale
>
> As noted in Issue-159, there are two problems with the current Section 
> 7.2.5. The first is that “editorial change” refers both to the first 
> two classes (of changes) and it is used in the definition of the 
> second class. The second is that the rest of the definition of the 
> second class has been found to be too vague. The proposed replacement 
> text is intended to fix both of these problems.
>
> [Issue-159] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/159 
> <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/159>
>
> It is possible, that the last sentence of the replacement text, “If 
> there is any doubt as to whether requirements are changed, such 
> changes do not belong to this class.” is not really needed as it is 
> primarily a warning to be careful. Please indicate if you want to keep 
> it or drop it.
>

I think we should keep it to make it absolutely clear to err on the side 
of not calling it an editorial change if there is any doubt.

> Thanks to Wayne Carr who proposed a slightly different change
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/0012.html
>
> and whose suggested text I have edited above as a change to the second 
> class of “editorial change” because I think distinguishing the two 
> classes is useful.
>
> Steve Zilles
>
> Chair, Process Document Task Force
>