Modified Timeline for 1.0

[Lane LiaBraaten]

Hi Everyone,

One of the topics we discussed on the conference call yesterday was adjusting the timeline for completing the 1.0 iteration.  In short, here's the plan:

1) Get a draft (RC0) together before the holidays for general review.  Some holes are expected, so proposal owners should commit any in-progress patches and include annotations for anything that's not complete or under discussion.*  Review of RC0 should focus on closing down any unfinished discussions.

2) Soon after the holidays we need a draft (RC1) that's "complete" - i.e. all the proposals on the table are represented in the spec.  All open discussions should be closed and this draft should include the final decisions.  Any proposal not represented or finalized in the RC1 draft will be dropped!  Review of RC1 should be for completeness, accuracy and specificity (and not revisit previous decisions).

3) The RC1 review should catch any contradictions, typos, and incorrect examples, so the next draft (RC2) should viable for publishing as 1.0.  We'll open the usual 5-day vote for accepting RC2 as official.

Some more specific dates:

12/21 - Post current draft with annotations around unfinished sections (RC0)

12/21 - 1/10 - Review incomplete content, complete discussions and prototypes, commit final spec patches for proposals

1/5 - OS Templates conference call

1/11 - Post draft with complete set of all proposals that will be in 1.0 (RC1)

1/11 - 1/17 - Review for accuracy and completeness

1/18 - Post draft addressing any issues found in RC1 review (RC2)

1/18-1/22 - Vote to accept RC2 as official 1.0 spec

Proposal Owners,

If you have any patches in progress, please commit them by 12/21 and include annotations about things that are incompletely documented, still under active discussion, or new functionality w/o a prototype.

If you have any issues/concerns with the above timeline please reply to this email so we can discuss them.

Thanks,

Lane

*On the conference call we discussed creating a special tag/style for these annotations. Until we come up with something better, use <x:highlight>[Ed. note: <your note>]</x:highlight>.  

[Arne Roomann-Kurrik]

I added support for marking up parts of the spec which need to be
committed to SVN but may be in review or disagreement, using an
<x:draft> element. You should be able to surround any block of
elements with it, and it'll accept a "note" attribute for a short
description, as well as a "href" if you want to render a link to
additional information.

Here's an example:

<x:draft note="Describe why this section is not approved" href="http://
example.com">
...
</x:draft>

You can see what it looks like here:
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/S28aUEQLuCRuDvX7fglBWA?authkey=Gv1sRgCKjXyPnO-Iy_Lw

Please use this to annotate anything that's not complete or is under
discussion.

Thanks,
~Arne