Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Close review loopholes from dropping Proposed Recommendation #927

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 9, 2024

Conversation

frivoal
Copy link
Collaborator

@frivoal frivoal commented Oct 8, 2024

Ensure the Recommendation published after AC Review corresponds to the text submitted to AC Review and the Patent Exlusion Opportunity.

See #919


Preview | Diff

@frivoal frivoal added the Agenda+ Marks issues that are ready for discussion on the call label Oct 8, 2024
index.bs Outdated
@@ -4089,6 +4091,14 @@ Transitioning to Recommendation</h4>
[=Advisory Committee representatives=] <em class="rfc2119">may</em> initiate an [=Advisory Committee Appeal=]
of the decision to advance the technical report.

The newly published [=Recommendation=]
<em class=rfc2119>must not</em> have any [=substantive changes=] to the document
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
<em class=rfc2119>must not</em> have any [=substantive changes=] to the document
<em class=rfc2119>must not</em> include any [=substantive changes=] made to the document

Copy link
Collaborator

@fantasai fantasai Oct 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How about just "must not include any substantive changes [ from | compared to ] the [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=]"?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

that phrasing sounds like it may be permissible to include substantive changes (other than dropping at risk) so long as they haven't been made to the document since CRS. They could, for example, be prepared on the side by the Team in response to AC Review. That wouldn't be appropriate.

How about:

Suggested change
<em class=rfc2119>must not</em> have any [=substantive changes=] to the document
<em class=rfc2119>must not</em> make any [=substantive changes=] to the document

together with

- since the [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=]
+ compared to the [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=]

@fantasai fantasai changed the title Close review loops when dropping Pull Request Close review loops when dropping Proposed Recommendation Oct 8, 2024
@fantasai fantasai changed the title Close review loops when dropping Proposed Recommendation Close review loopholes from dropping Proposed Recommendation Oct 8, 2024
Copy link
Member

@tantek tantek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This change looks good to me as-is, and I'm ok with the handful of variants suggested edits as well, but leave those to the judgment of the Editor to decide as to what makes the most sense, and fits best in the flow and understanding of the document.

Ensure the Recommendation published after AC Review corresponds
to the text submitted to AC Review and the Patent Exlusion Opportunity.

See w3c#919
@frivoal frivoal force-pushed the rec-transition-refinement branch from de51d70 to d3562c0 Compare October 9, 2024 15:38
@frivoal frivoal added Closed: Accepted The issue has been addressed, though not necessarily based on the initial suggestion and removed Agenda+ Marks issues that are ready for discussion on the call labels Oct 9, 2024
@frivoal frivoal merged commit fb77fca into w3c:main Oct 9, 2024
2 checks passed
@frivoal frivoal deleted the rec-transition-refinement branch October 9, 2024 15:47
@frivoal frivoal added this to the Process 2024/2025 milestone Oct 9, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Closed: Accepted The issue has been addressed, though not necessarily based on the initial suggestion
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants