/[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 3043 - (show annotations)
Tue Aug 25 16:18:37 2015 UTC (6 years, 1 month ago) by mdittmar
File MIME type: text/plain
File size: 4478 byte(s)
restoring.. my bad
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 a link to it is created in the working group's landing
7 page[2].
8
9 This "-Next" page will have four sections:
10
11 * Accepted Errata
12 * Rejected Errata
13 * Proposed Errata
14 * Proposed Features
15
16 All the Errata sections will consist of listings whose items are
17 pointers to globally editable pages titled
18 <standardname>-<currentversion>-Erratum-<runningnumber>
19 where the text for the erratum will physically reside.
20
21 The Proposed Features section may have a similar structure or just
22 consist of actual description of the features depending on the content
23 length and complexity.
24
25 The Accepted Errata (i.e. the errata reviewed by TCG and Exec as
26 described later in this section) must be linked from the standard's
27 landing page as well as from the document text.
28
29 Rejected and Proposed Errata not yet reviewed, as well as Proposed
30 Features, will continue living in the -Next page to document
31 present and past activity on the specification.
32
33 One such Next-page is maintained per recommendation (i.e., standards
34 version); as a new REC is passed, a new, empty -Next page is created.
35
36 The sections on Accepted and Rejected Errata may only be edited
37 by the responsible
38 working group chairs on behalf of the TCG as discussed below.
39 Edits in either section made by other parties must be removed
40 by the working group chairs.
41
42 The other two sections are open for editing to anyone.
43
44 On the revision of a standard, 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 The
57 proposed erratum is then announced on the Working Group's mailing
58 list, which should also be the main medium of discussing the erratum.
59 Errata likely to affect other working groups should also be announced
60 on the full VO community.
61
62 Before each meeting of the TCG, the TCG chair collects a list of
63 proposed errata for the WG chairs. It must be circulated to all TCG
64 members at least two weeks before the meeting. The texts of the
65 errata under consideration are, at that point, frozen until the TCG
66 meeting.
67
68 At each TCG meeting, a vote is taken on each erratum circulated in
69 this way. All WGs (represented by a consensus of chair and vice-chair
70 if both are present) must vote one of accept, defer, or reject. An
71 erratum is accepted if all WGs vote accept, it is rejected if an
72 absolute majority rejects; in all other cases it remains a proposed
73 erratum. The TCG may, unanimously, amend an Erratum an with
74 redactional changes proposed in-session.
75
76 Errata either accepted or rejected are permanently frozen, i.e., no
77 further edits are allowed on the pages that describe them.
78 Links to accepted (rejected) errata on the -Next
79 pages are moved by the WG chair to the Accepted (Rejected) Errata section.
80 Errata deferred are unfrozen and open to
81 further discussion and/or refinement.
82
83 A list of all errata accepted for a document together with links to
84 them is also maintained on the document's landing page in the IVOA
85 document repository while the version in question is the most recent
86 one, as well as in the heading section of the actual standard text in the
87 version the erratum is written for.
88
89 For each meeting of the Executive Committee, the TCG chair prepares a
90 list of the errata passed since the last meeting of the Executive
91 Committee. The Executive Committee can withdraw an erratum with single
92 majority. Such errata will be marked as rejected in the document
93 repository, possibly with a reference to a superseding erratum.
94
95 [1] As of this writing, the page will reside in IVOA's wiki, but the
96 technical details are not subject of this norm.
97
98 [2] As of this writing, this would be the working group page in IVOA's
99 wiki.
100
101
102 The rationale for requiring consensus is that if it's contentious, it's
103 probably not an erratum. Keeping rejected errata will help clarify
104 subtle points of standards.

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