ViewVC logotype

Annotation of /trunk/projects/docstd/errata-proposal.txt

Parent Directory Parent Directory | Revision Log Revision Log

Revision 2972 - (hide annotations)
Thu May 21 14:29:34 2015 UTC (6 years, 1 month ago) by volute@g-vo.org
File MIME type: text/plain
File size: 3696 byte(s)
Creating a docstd top-level, added a temporary proposal for errata.

1 volute@g-vo.org 2972 Proposed change to DocStd: Add a section 1.6, "Errata and Evolution", with
2     the content:
4     As a recommendation is published in the IVOA document repository, a
5     globally editable page[1] titled <standardname>-<currentversion>-Next is
6     created and linked from the standard's landing page. One such Next-page
7     is maintained per recommendation (i.e., standards version).
9     Theses pages have four sections:
11     * Accepted Errata
12     * Rejected Errata
13     * Proposed Errata
14     * Proposed Features
16     Both Accepted and Rejected Errata may only be edited by the responsible
17     working group chairs on behalf of the TCG as discussed below, who also
18     MUST remove edits by other parties.
20     The other two sections are open for editing to anyone.
22     On revision of standards, material and discussions from Proposed
23     Features should be taken into account. No further constraints are put
24     on usage of the Proposed Features section here.
26     Errata, on the other hand, have a formal process. To start it, any
27     interested party can create a proposal for an erratum which SHOULD
28     contain text on each of
30     * Proposed change of standards text
31     * Rationale
32     * Impact Assessment
34     Physically, the text resides on a globally editable page titled
35     <standardname>-<currentversion>-Erratum-<runningnumber>. A link to
36     this page is then added to the Proposed Errata section of the -Next
37     page and announced on the Working Group's mailing list, which should
38     also be the main medium of discussing the erratum. Errata likely to
39     affect other working groups should also be announced on the full VO
40     community.
42     Before each meeting of the TCG, the TCG chair collects a list of
43     proposed errata for the WG chairs. It must be circulated to all TCG
44     members at least two weeks before the meeting. The texts of the
45     errata under consideration are, at that point, frozen until the TCG
46     descision.
48     At each TCG meeting, a vote is taken on each erratum circulated in
49     this way. All WGs (represented by a consensus of chair and vice-chair
50     if both are present) must vote one of accept, defer, or reject. An
51     erratum is accepted if all WGs vote accept, it is rejected if an
52     absolute majority rejects; in all other cases it remains a proposed
53     erratum. The TCG may, unanimously, amend an Erratum an with
54     redactional changes proposed in-session.
56     Both accepted and rejected errata are frozen at that point, i.e., no
57     further edits are allowed on their pages. Their links on the -Next
58     pages are moved by the WG chair to the Accepted Erratum section. A
59     rejected erratum is moved by the WG chair to the Rejected Errata
60     section of the -Next page. Errata deferred are unfrozen and open to
61     further discussion and/or refinement.
63     A list of all errata accepted for a document together with links to
64     them is also maintained on the document's landing page in the IVOA
65     document repository while the version in question is the most recent
66     one, as well as on the cover page of the actual standard text in the
67     version the erratum is written for.
69     For each meeting of the Executive Committee, the TCG chair prepares a
70     list of the errata passed since the last meeting of the Executive
71     Committee. The Executive Committee can withdraw an erratum with single
72     majority. Such errata will be marked as rejected in the document
73     repository, possibly with a reference to a superseding erratum.
75     [1] As of this writing, the page will reside in IVOA's wiki, but the
76     technical details are not subject of this norm.
80     The rationale for requiring consensus is that if it's contentious, it's
81     probably not an erratum. Keeping rejected errata will help clarify
82     subtle points of standards.

ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.26