Errata process

[Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]

Hi Mary,

I have to admit I had failed to look closely at some parts of the
process document until very recently. Apologies, in advance.

I'm looking now at 3.5 Approved Errata. It says, in part:

  A TC may not adopt Approved Errata to an OASIS Standard more than
  once in any consecutive six-month period.

With respect, I find that constraint outrageous. The apparent
consequence of this rule is that if I publish an erratum in January,
fixing a typo, then in February discover a technical error in the
spec, I'm forbidden from officially resolving it until July!?

How on earth does that benefit the users of OASIS specifications?

It also begs the question of what constitutes an Approved Errata.
Suppose I have three errors, two typos and a minor technical error.
Do I have to put them in a single document for 15 day review, or can
I publish each of them separately for independent 15 day reviews?

If the former, then don't I run the risk of not being able to publish
a technical erratum indefinitely because some malicious pedant wants
to argue about whether commas go inside or outside of quotataions and
continues to comment time and again on each 15 day review?

I'd prefer to be able to advance the comments separately, so that
contentious issues like punctuation don't interefere with the progress
of actual technical concerns.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | As a general rule, the most successful
http://nwalsh.com/            | man in life is the man who has the best
                              | information.--Benjamin Disraeli

PGP signature