User Tools

Site Tools


erratasystem:rethink

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
erratasystem:rethink [2015/02/02 16:12]
rsewikiadmin
erratasystem:rethink [2015/02/06 09:41] (current)
rsewikiadmin
Line 1: Line 1:
  
 ===Criteria for a successful errata system=== ===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 
 +  - should not be a path for people to change WG consensus
  
 +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=== ===Proposal 1===
Line 12: Line 23:
 ===Proposal 2=== ===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. 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=== ===Process Diagram for errata submission===
erratasystem/rethink.1422922362.txt.gz · Last modified: 2015/02/02 16:12 by rsewikiadmin