[Editorial] Give context for candidate amendments when revising a REC #862
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This change gives a little bit more context about how to make normative changes to a REC. Technically, and this is what the existing text talked about, they are made by folding in candidate amendments. However, someone just reading that section may not be aware of what candidate amendments are and how they are made to begin with. This gives just a little bit of context to help people piece things together. This is a small step towards addressing w3c#700
frivoal
added
Type: Editorial improvements
Agenda+
TallTed
suggested changes
May 1, 2024
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
fantasai
approved these changes
May 8, 2024
|
The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed
The full IRC log of that discussion<plh> subtopic: #862<plh> github: https://github.com//pull/862 <TallTed> RRSAgent, set logs public <RRSAgent> I have made the request, TallTed <cpn> Florian: It's a small change, further work will be needed <cpn> ... People have said maintaining Recs is complicated and hard to understand <cpn> ... This tries to make it easier to understand <TallTed> RRSAgent, pointer? <RRSAgent> See https://www.w3.org/2024/05/08-w3process-irc#T14-29-05 <cpn> .... Four classes of change are possible. The Process discusses how to discuss changing a Rec for each class <cpn> ... For substantive changes and new features, it talks about folding in a candidate addition, but doesn't talk about how they're done <plh> q+ <cpn> ... They're editorial notes, so follow that process. So this change reminds people how to do that <cpn> PLH: PR seems fine. It also fixes a bug in the process <cpn> ... Chairs still struggle with this. I can organise a TPAC breakout <cpn> ... We haven't solved it from a tooling point of view <cpn> Florian: That's why I started with the editorial bit <plh> ack plh <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge 862 |
css-meeting-bot
removed
the
Agenda+
frivoal
added
the
Closed: Accepted
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This change gives a little bit more context about how to make normative changes to a REC. Technically, and this is what the existing text talked about, they are made by folding in candidate amendments. However, someone just reading that section may not be aware of what candidate amendments are and how they are made to begin with.
This gives just a little bit of context to help people piece things together.
This is a (very) small step towards addressing #700
Preview | Diff