ViewVC logotype

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

Parent Directory Parent Directory | Revision Log Revision Log

Revision 2973 - (show annotations)
Thu May 21 14:35:45 2015 UTC (6 years, 1 month ago) by volute@g-vo.org
File MIME type: text/plain
File size: 4051 byte(s)
errata proposal: added requirement to mention -Next in the preamble.

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

ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.26