Issue Details (XML | Word | Printable)

Key: JSR348-73
Type: Bug Bug
Status: Closed Closed
Resolution: Won't Fix
Priority: Major Major
Assignee: Unassigned
Reporter: pcurran
Votes: 0
Watchers: 0
Operations

If you were logged in you would be able to see more operations.
jsr348

Should the process for modifying the Standing Rules document be specified in the Process Doc?

Created: 12/Aug/11 06:18 PM   Updated: 18/Aug/11 12:04 AM   Resolved: 18/Aug/11 12:04 AM
Component/s: Process Doc, Standing Rules
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None

Time Tracking:
Not Specified

Tags:
Participants: eduardo and pcurran


 Description  « Hide

It might be more appropriate to define the process for modifying the Standing Rules document in the Process Document, since some of the material has been moved from the Process Doc to the Standing Rules. (Also, since the Process Document has a more "formal" status.)



eduardo added a comment - 12/Aug/11 07:17 PM

But then a change in the way Standing Rules are modified would necessitate a JSR.


pcurran added a comment - 12/Aug/11 09:13 PM

No - we would simply copy the existing text, which describes the lightweight change process, from the Standing Rules document to the Process Document.

We would have to do a JSR to change the process for changing the Standing Rules


eduardo added a comment - 12/Aug/11 09:21 PM

That's what I meant: once the standing-rules-changing-process is in the Process document, you'll need a JSR to change the standing-rules-changing-process, and I'm not sure that's desirable. And while the Process document has a more "formal" status, as you say, (does it?) the Standing Rules document is as normative as the Process document, so I'm not sure I buy the argument that the later is more appropriate.


pcurran added a comment - 18/Aug/11 12:04 AM

OK - it was a passing thought.

Better to keep the two documents as separate and independent of each other as possible.

I'm closing this.