| Hi Toby,
All changes must be clearly identified - whether via a log or redline. With the new procedure you will approve a Working Draft as a new Committee Specification Draft using the revised document I returned to you. I will then create the new CSD. If also approved to submit for public review TC Administration will also prepare the new public review draft and create the diff unless the TC prefers to use a change log.
Whatever works best for the TC's internal review/approval process is fine; after many years working in legal publishing (i.e. preparing and producing state statutes) it's always best to note each and every change since on occasion the wrong thing is changed, a change is missed, etc.
On Dec 7, 2010, at 6:22 AM, Considine, Toby (Campus Services IT) wrote: In WS-Calendar, we got 79 comments during public review. It is my understanding that we release the second PR with only changes up for review the second time. 26 of the comments are trivial, i.e., grammatical, or duplicated words, or.. (some of these comments are duplicates) I would like to make those trivial changes, accept those changes, and then track the only substantial differences going forward. Is this acceptable practice in the new TC process? Tc
"If something is not worth doing, it`s not worth doing well"
Peter Drucker
Toby Considine Chair, OASIS oBIX Technical Committee
U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee Facilities Technology Office
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC | | |
|