/[volute]/trunk/projects/docstd/errata-proposal.txt
ViewVC logotype

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

Parent Directory Parent Directory | Revision Log Revision Log


Revision 3013 - (hide annotations)
Tue Jun 23 10:19:55 2015 UTC (5 years, 4 months ago) by marco.merot@gmail.com
File MIME type: text/plain
File size: 4684 byte(s)
docstd: re-arranged along the lines discussed at TCG f2f

1 volute@g-vo.org 2972 Proposed change to DocStd: Add a section 1.6, "Errata and Evolution", with
2     the content:
3    
4     As a recommendation is published in the IVOA document repository, a
5     globally editable page[1] titled <standardname>-<currentversion>-Next is
6 marco.merot@gmail.com 3013 created. This page will have four sections:
7 volute@g-vo.org 2972
8     * Accepted Errata
9     * Rejected Errata
10     * Proposed Errata
11     * Proposed Features
12    
13 marco.merot@gmail.com 3013 All the Errata sections will consist of listings whose items are
14     pointers to globally editable pages titled
15     <standardname>-<currentversion>-Erratum-<runningnumber>
16     where the text for the erratum will physically reside.
17    
18     The Proposed Features section may have a similar structure or just
19     consist of actual description of the features depending on the content
20     length and complexity.
21    
22     The Accepted Errata elements (i.e. the errata reviewed by TCG and Exec as
23     described later in this section) must be linked from the standard's
24     landing page as well as from the document text.
25    
26     The standard preamble on the "Status of this
27     Document" for a REC must now contain text to the effect that "Discussion
28     on the evolution of this standard, as well as accepted errata, can be
29     found at <links to the Accepted-Errata-page(s)>."
30    
31     Rejected and Proposed Errata not yet reviewed, as well as Proposed
32     Features, will continue living in the -Next page as recollection of
33     present and past activity on the specification.
34    
35     One such Next-page is maintained per recommendation (i.e., standards
36     version); as a new REC is passed, a new, empty -Next page is created.
37    
38 volute@g-vo.org 2972 Both Accepted and Rejected Errata may only be edited by the responsible
39     working group chairs on behalf of the TCG as discussed below, who also
40     MUST remove edits by other parties.
41    
42     The other two sections are open for editing to anyone.
43    
44     On revision of standards, material and discussions from Proposed
45     Features should be taken into account. No further constraints are put
46     on usage of the Proposed Features section here.
47    
48     Errata, on the other hand, have a formal process. To start it, any
49     interested party can create a proposal for an erratum which SHOULD
50     contain text on each of
51    
52     * Proposed change of standards text
53     * Rationale
54     * Impact Assessment
55    
56 marco.merot@gmail.com 3013 As already said, physically, the text resides on a globally editable
57     page linked from the Proposed Errata section of the -Next page. The
58     proposed erratum is then announced on the Working Group's mailing
59     list, which should also be the main medium of discussing the erratum.
60     Errata likely to affect other working groups should also be announced
61     on the full VO community.
62 volute@g-vo.org 2972
63     Before each meeting of the TCG, the TCG chair collects a list of
64     proposed errata for the WG chairs. It must be circulated to all TCG
65     members at least two weeks before the meeting. The texts of the
66     errata under consideration are, at that point, frozen until the TCG
67     descision.
68    
69     At each TCG meeting, a vote is taken on each erratum circulated in
70     this way. All WGs (represented by a consensus of chair and vice-chair
71     if both are present) must vote one of accept, defer, or reject. An
72     erratum is accepted if all WGs vote accept, it is rejected if an
73     absolute majority rejects; in all other cases it remains a proposed
74     erratum. The TCG may, unanimously, amend an Erratum an with
75     redactional changes proposed in-session.
76    
77     Both accepted and rejected errata are frozen at that point, i.e., no
78     further edits are allowed on their pages. Their links on the -Next
79     pages are moved by the WG chair to the Accepted Erratum section. A
80     rejected erratum is moved by the WG chair to the Rejected Errata
81     section of the -Next page. Errata deferred are unfrozen and open to
82     further discussion and/or refinement.
83    
84     A list of all errata accepted for a document together with links to
85     them is also maintained on the document's landing page in the IVOA
86     document repository while the version in question is the most recent
87     one, as well as on the cover page of the actual standard text in the
88     version the erratum is written for.
89    
90     For each meeting of the Executive Committee, the TCG chair prepares a
91     list of the errata passed since the last meeting of the Executive
92     Committee. The Executive Committee can withdraw an erratum with single
93     majority. Such errata will be marked as rejected in the document
94     repository, possibly with a reference to a superseding erratum.
95    
96     [1] As of this writing, the page will reside in IVOA's wiki, but the
97     technical details are not subject of this norm.
98    
99    
100    
101     The rationale for requiring consensus is that if it's contentious, it's
102     probably not an erratum. Keeping rejected errata will help clarify
103     subtle points of standards.

msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de
ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.26