Identifiers 1.1

[Tony Linde]

Why would we want to remove WD from the Documents section? WD is a definite
stage in the approval process and docs at WD stage must appear in the
Documents area. This is a separate issue from the formatting of the docs
which I believe Bob's email was about.

Cheers,
Tony.  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stdproc at eso.org [mailto:owner-stdproc at eso.org] On 
> Behalf Of Marco C. Leoni
> Sent: 04 March 2004 14:23
> To: Robert Hanisch
> Cc: IVOA stdproc WG
> Subject: Re: Identifiers 1.1
> 
> Hi Bob,
>     this sounds like less work for the Document Coordinator: 
> then I agree, let's merge the two docs - Working Draft and 
> internal WG Draft - and remove the WD tree from the 
> ivoa.net/Documents section of the site.
> Also, the IVOA Document Standards Recommendation needs to be 
> updated to reflect these changes.
> 
> Cheers,
>     Marco
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Hanisch wrote:
> 
> >Folks,
> >
> >  I think we've gone a bit overboard in our formatting rules here.  
> >There is no point in making extra work for document authors, 
> changing 
> >formats unnecessarily.  If you read our agreed upon 
> standards process you find:
> >Working Draft.  A document begins as a Working Draft. A 
> Working Draft 
> >is a chartered work item of a Working Group and generally represents 
> >work in progress and a commitment by IVOA to pursue work in a 
> >particular area.  The label "Working Draft" does not imply 
> that there 
> >is consensus within IVOA about the document.
> >
> >I do not see the need for another level of document, a 
> pre-Working Draft.
> >"Working Draft" is clear enough in name and definition.
> >
> >I believe the intent of our discussions in January was to make sure 
> >that WG Chairs worked with the Document Coordinator to keep the 
> >document library uncluttered, with correct cross-links, etc.
> >
> >Bob
> >
>