/[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 3013 - (show 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 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. This page will have four sections:
7
8 * Accepted Errata
9 * Rejected Errata
10 * Proposed Errata
11 * Proposed Features
12
13 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 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 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
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