21806 2013-04-23 23:30:29 +0000 Editors' response could be simplified 2015-02-16 00:36:44 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG working group Decision Policy unspecified PC All NEW http://www.plam.cantech.bg P2 normal --- 1 robin dave.null mike mjs Paul.Cotton plam rubys public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 86636 0 robin 2013-04-23 23:30:29 +0000 Given the new cool URL we have, I suggest that we simplify the boilerplate to the following: """ EDITOR'S DECISION (see http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html on how to respond to it if needed) (rationale) """ If implemented, I don't believe that this change will require a version change. 87728 1 rubys 2013-05-15 14:06:02 +0000 I'd prefer EDITOR's RESPONSE rather than EDITOR'S DECISION, as many confuse Editor's proposed resolutions as Working Group Decisions. I'd prefer a more specific URL, something like http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#basic-step-2 And perhaps to make it even more stable, changing the anchor to #editors-response. --- As to how the decision policy itself would need to change, clearly the boilerplate would have to be removed, the description of the resolutions can stay, and the part of the boilerplate that talks about potential next steps becomes part of the text of the decision policy. What needs to be discussed is the following bullets: * A clear statement of whether the comment was accepted or rejected. * A rationale for the change or lack of change (at least enough for the Disposition of Comments). * A link to the relevant spec diff or diffs, if the spec was changed. The proposed boilerplace covers #2, but doesn't clearly cover #1 and #3. My take is that these are reasonable items for people to expect in a proposed resolution. Thoughts? 87987 2 robin 2013-05-21 12:48:44 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > I'd prefer EDITOR's RESPONSE rather than EDITOR'S DECISION, as many confuse > Editor's proposed resolutions as Working Group Decisions. That's actually what I meant, thanks for catching that. > I'd prefer a more specific URL, something like > > http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#basic-step-2 > > And perhaps to make it even more stable, changing the anchor to > #editors-response. That works for me; I don't have a strong preference as the anchor name. > As to how the decision policy itself would need to change, clearly the > boilerplate would have to be removed, the description of the resolutions can > stay, and the part of the boilerplate that talks about potential next steps > becomes part of the text of the decision policy. What needs to be discussed > is the following bullets: > > * A clear statement of whether the comment was accepted or rejected. > * A rationale for the change or lack of change (at least enough for the > Disposition of Comments). > * A link to the relevant spec diff or diffs, if the spec was changed. > > The proposed boilerplace covers #2, but doesn't clearly cover #1 and #3. My > take is that these are reasonable items for people to expect in a proposed > resolution. Thoughts? How about making it: (Accepted|Rejected) (Rationale) (Pointer to change) ?