Hi,
1. quoting CDR 4, ``Common Lisp Document Repository (revised)'':
``There will be an initial period of six weeks in which you can send us updated versions, for example to correct typos, etc., which will replace any older version with the same CDR number. You can negotiate with us a longer initial period, but the maximum length is one year.''
I think a default initial period of six week is way too short. I'd suggest a period of six _months_ instead.
Otherwise, there's the danger that CDRs will be finalized which haven't received any real feedback. Feedback, that is public scrutination, is really crucial as I've found out myself while writing the With-Readtable-Iterator proposal.
It is my impression that most people have the necessary spare time around semester breaks, and christmas. Extending the initial period to six months ensures that it always crosses one of these peak times.
2. I also suggest the permission to update finalized CDRs under the following constrain:
A section talking about current practises CDR may be updated to reflect adoption of the documentation's content that has occured since the publication of the CDR. The change must not alter the meaning or the intent of the document.
-T.
Hi everybody,
On 12 Nov 2008, at 16:45, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
Hi,
quoting CDR 4, ``Common Lisp Document Repository (revised)'':
``There will be an initial period of six weeks in which you can send us updated versions, for example to correct typos, etc., which will replace any older version with the same CDR number. You can negotiate with us a longer initial period, but the maximum length is one year.''
I think a default initial period of six week is way too short. I'd suggest a period of six _months_ instead.
Otherwise, there's the danger that CDRs will be finalized which haven't received any real feedback. Feedback, that is public scrutination, is really crucial as I've found out myself while writing the With-Readtable-Iterator proposal.
It is my impression that most people have the necessary spare time around semester breaks, and christmas. Extending the initial period to six months ensures that it always crosses one of these peak times.
The original idea when we designed CDR was that documents are already publicly scrutinized elsewhere before they are submitted to CDR, so the 6 weeks were targeted at last-minute changes that typically arise in the last few weeks.
Note, though, that you can always ask for a longer period when submitting a CDR, and we are flexible to change these periods on the fly. CDR should be a service to the community, not a stumbling block that stifles good work just because we interpret rules by the word, and not by their spirit.
However, I have the impression that many people understand the period of six weeks indeed as the _main_ discussion period for a proposal. If we hear a lot of people wishing for extending the default initial period to 6 months (or so), we can certainly change the CDR rules to reflect the needs of the community.
Do other people have any opinions on this?
- I also suggest the permission to update finalized CDRs under the
following constrain:
A section talking about current practises CDR may be updated to reflect adoption of the documentation's content that has occured since the publication of the CDR. The change must not alter the meaning or the intent of the document.
This is a problematic suggestion because it requires somebody to make a judgment call whether or not a change alters the meaning or the intent of a document. It is likely that the CDR maintainers are not experts in each and every domain CDR documents will be about, so this would be quite hard to organize.
Instead, consider simply resubmitting a document under as a new CDR, and state in that document that it supersedes a previous CDR. We can also add to the previous CDR that a new CDR supersedes it. This is the preferred way for such changes, because it leaves the judgment whether a changed document accurately reflects community agreement completely to the community.
Or do you think this is not sufficient?
Pascal
However, I have the impression that many people understand the period of six weeks indeed as the _main_ discussion period for a proposal. If we hear a lot of people wishing for extending the default initial period to 6 months (or so), we can certainly change the CDR rules to reflect the needs of the community.
Do other people have any opinions on this?
That was my impression. 6-months is probably safer (unless it adds greatly to the CDR maintainer's workload).
Instead, consider simply resubmitting a document under as a new CDR,
and state in that document that it supersedes a previous CDR. We can also add to the previous CDR that a new CDR supersedes it. This is the preferred way for such changes, because it leaves the judgment whether a changed document accurately reflects community agreement completely to the community.
Or do you think this is not sufficient?
I strongly _agree_ with Pascal's point. Changes should be new CDRs.
thanks, -- Gary Warren King, metabang.com Cell: (413) 559 8738 Fax: (206) 338-4052 gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM
Pascal Costanza writes:
TCR writes
I think a default initial period of six week is way too short. I'd suggest a period of six _months_ instead.
The original idea when we designed CDR was that documents are already publicly scrutinized elsewhere before they are submitted to CDR, so the 6 weeks were targeted at last-minute changes that typically arise in the last few weeks.
This is what I thought. Notice, however, that submitting a CDR has the follow effects
a) it's announced
so people are more likely to direct their attention to such a document.
b) it's _officially_ announced
so people who want to implement documents into their implementation of choice, have some credited ressource to point implementators at.
c) there is a public, and archived, discussion platform
Another possibility would be to introduce a new status, "Draft", which takes 6 months, and precedes the "Initial" status. This seems to make the process unnecessarily more complex, though.
-T.
On 15 Nov 2008, at 19:32, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
Pascal Costanza writes:
TCR writes
I think a default initial period of six week is way too short. I'd suggest a period of six _months_ instead.
The original idea when we designed CDR was that documents are already publicly scrutinized elsewhere before they are submitted to CDR, so the 6 weeks were targeted at last-minute changes that typically arise in the last few weeks.
This is what I thought. Notice, however, that submitting a CDR has the follow effects
a) it's announced
so people are more likely to direct their attention to such a document.b) it's _officially_ announced
so people who want to implement documents into their implementation of choice, have some credited ressource to point implementators at.c) there is a public, and archived, discussion platform
Another possibility would be to introduce a new status, "Draft", which takes 6 months, and precedes the "Initial" status. This seems to make the process unnecessarily more complex, though.
Indeed, this would make the process more complicated.
I will try and see how an 'informal' approach works out, by suggesting a 6 month period to submitters in case their documents haven't been discussed before. Maybe that already resolves the issue. Let's see how that works.
Anyway, thanks a lot for the feedback!
Pascal
-
Gary King -
Pascal Costanza -
Tobias C. Rittweiler