Define editorial vs substantive changes for non-REC-track documents.

[fantasai]

Prior to this change, the 4 classes of changes were well-defined for REC-track documents, but not anything else. However, we need to distinguish editorial vs substantive changes for any document that passes through AC review, e.g. charters, Statements, the Process itself, CEPC, etc.

Related to #28

---

Preview | Diff

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Define editorial vs substantive changes for non-REC-track documents.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Subtopic: Define editorial vs substantive changes for non-REC-track documents
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//pull/647
<fantasai> florian: been a problem for awhile that we very clearly define what is an editorial change vs substantive change for RECs, but not for anything else
<fantasai> ... what is editorial vs substantive for charters? for CEPC?
<fantasai> ... for anything other than REC, wasn't defined, but we were relying on the definition
<fantasai> ... so this is a minimal change to the definitions that we have to make them apply to things other than REC-track documents
<jeff> q+
<fantasai> florian: Intent is that this changes nothing for REC track, but provides an answer where we didn't have one for other types of documents
<plh> ack jeff
<fantasai> plh: Seems harmless to me
<fantasai> jeff: Interesting that you're making us think about all the new kinds of documents we have
<fantasai> ... so I have a registry, and I add a new line in the registry
<fantasai> florian: That's a Class 5 change, and is already defined
<fantasai> ... unchanged
<fantasai> fantasai: any concerns?
<fantasai> jeff: We have places we do different things for different classes of changes
<fantasai> ... we addressed class 5 in 2021?
<fantasai> florian: Yes, for registries everything is well-behaved already
<fantasai> ... but for example, at end of AC review, can do different things for editorial vs substantive changes
<fantasai> ... in case of specs, we know what to do
<fantasai> ... but for charters we don't
<wseltzer> q+
<fantasai> ... so that helps with that, primarily
<fantasai> ... what it is we do with different classes of changes, is in a separate PR
<plh> ack ws
<jeff> q+
<fantasai> wseltzer: This one, I see edits to the text of the change description, what is the meaning of changing from "correction" to "changes"
<fantasai> ... and would it be argued that different sets of things are covered in 2 or 3 for the same type of document?
<plh> fantasai: we changed corrections that do not add nfeatures to "other changes that do not add new features"
<plh> s/nfea/fea/
<plh> ... i wanted to use a new generic term
<fantasai> fantasai: on one hand changes can be editorial, on other hand can be new feature, if substantive but not new feature falls into class 3
<plh> wseltzer: is there something new that are class 2/3 compared to Process 2021?
<plh> florian: for a spec, it doesn't change anything
<plh> ... but for others, like CEPC, it's different
<plh> q?
<plh> ack jeff
<fantasai> wseltzer: That's aht I wanted to hear, that for specs it doesn't change
<plh> jeff: CEPC is an interesting one
<plh> ... we could make it a statement one day
<fantasai> florian: even if we don't, it still goes through AC Review
<plh> ... things like Ethical Web, Privacy Questionnaire. to add a new Ethical Web guideline, those are called new features?
<fantasai> s/... things/jeff: things/
<TallTed> (future calls should strive to end at :55, rather than :00)
<plh> florian: distinction between 2, 3,4 a re important. changing the interpretation means you're not in class 2
<tzviya> +1 to merge
<plh> +1
<jeff> +1
<plh> Resolved: Merge #647