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 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:
  1. Re: Agenda Process Task Force Telcon on 14 October (from chaals@yandex-team.ru on 2014-10-14)
  2. Time for Process Document Chapter 7 Task Force meeting on next Monday, 28 April (from szilles@adobe.com on 2014-04-24)
  3. Re: Feedback from Liam Quin - Fwd: Re: Staff contacts review of draft Chapter 7 revision (from chaals@yandex-team.ru on 2014-04-23)
  4. Update on Process Document Chapter 7 Task Force meeting on next Monday, 28 April (from szilles@adobe.com on 2014-04-23)
  5. 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 McCathie Nevile, 14 Oct 2014, 09:25:40

Closed as a duplicate of ISSUE-141 (with a reference here where there are links that are not recorded on that issue)

Charles McCathie Nevile, 11 Jan 2015, 15:50:44

Display change log ATOM feed


David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Chair, Veronica Thom <veronica@w3.org>, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: index.php,v 1.325 2014-09-10 21:42:02 ted Exp $