Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- erratasystem:rethink [2015/02/02 16:12]
rsewikiadmin
+++ erratasystem:rethink [2015/02/02 16:21]
rsewikiadmin
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ===Criteria for a successful errata system===
-  -  a measure of a successful errata system will be one visually and through metadata differentiate between levels of usefulness for an implementer/reader.
+  -  visually and through metadata differentiate between levels of usefulness for an implementer/reader.
+     -  or, possibly another way to say that, more clearly differentiates between editorial and technical things implementors may need to care about
+  - shouldn’t be a PITA to use
+Other critical points:
+  - RPC to be the gatekeeper for editorial errata; need to have a way to pass through things that look editorial but may have impact on the technical meaning of the text.
+  - level of effort is a consideration, both on the part of the RPC and the community, but it is only one criteria.
+  - editorial errata and EFL issues may tie together, but that’s hard for this group to really understand without more information
+  - a system that allows for modding of technical reports seems to have consensus
+===Discussion===
+[[http://piratepad.net/mqCvFxyR8w]]
 ===Proposal 1===
@@ Line 12: / Line 22: @@
 ===Proposal 2===
 A single website that presents errata of this sort as highlighted in a different color on the presented RFC, rather than as comments that are in a separate visual stream from the presented RFC.   I would like errata to be done similarly, if they are verified by someone who can check whether a new consensus is required to affirm the erratum.
 ===Process Diagram for errata submission===

RSE Wiki Archive

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools