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

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

Parent Directory Parent Directory | Revision Log Revision Log


Revision 2972 - (show annotations)
Thu May 21 14:29:34 2015 UTC (5 years, 6 months 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 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 created and linked from the standard's landing page. One such Next-page
7 is maintained per recommendation (i.e., standards version).
8
9 Theses pages have four sections:
10
11 * Accepted Errata
12 * Rejected Errata
13 * Proposed Errata
14 * Proposed Features
15
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.
19
20 The other two sections are open for editing to anyone.
21
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.
25
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
29
30 * Proposed change of standards text
31 * Rationale
32 * Impact Assessment
33
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.
41
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.
47
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.
55
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.
62
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.
68
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.
74
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.
77
78
79
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.

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