25.09.2014, 16:06, "Arthur Barstow" <[email protected]>: > On 9/25/14 9:32 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote: >> Ok so, let's start getting consensus on the new pub work flow [1]. I want >> us to be the first using the new pub process the second it is available. >> >> Does anyone object to Editors in this group using [1]? >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/08/pubworkflow.html
I can't see any reason to object to using this. But I would object to publishing "every" update to an editor's draft as the new /TR draft. Editor's drafts need to be readily available for a variety of stakeholders. /TR drafts should be updated "when there have been significant changes to the previous published document that would benefit from review beyond the Working Group" - http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#revised-wd I.e. TR drafts should have a bit more stability than is required for an editor's draft. In many cases it makes a lot of sense to check in each little change separately to an editor's draft, in order to get good logging of what actually changed. Whereas a TR draft should be able to sum up the differences between it and a previous version (with a significant change) in a few lines. cheers > Thanks Marcos. > > All - if you have any comments or concerns about Marcos' CfC above, > please send them to public-webapps @ w3.org by October 2 at the latest. > Positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be > considered as agreement with the proposal. > > -Thanks, ArtB -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex [email protected] - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
