Hi Everyone,
I totally agree that merging #1183 was an overstep on my part, the bylaws are clear that it should be a secretary managing merging and not the editor of the PSR. I also agree that some of these changes would qualify for errata, I appreciate you paying attention and holding me accountable.
That said I think our bylaws are a little too open when it comes to managing these sorts of changes. Once a PSR is accepted, secretaries are charged with managing "typos, changes or errata" with the optional help of the editor:
> If the Acceptance Vote passes, ... the Working Group is automatically dissolved, however the Editor’s input (or a nominated individual communicated to the secretaries) may be called upon in the future should typos, changes or Errata on the specification be raised.
The "typos" and "changes" portion of that is classified more specifically in the Amendments bylaw as "formatting and typo" fixes:
> If formatting is broken for any reason then changing formatting must not be considered a change to the document. These can be merged or pushed without hesitation by a secretary, as long as they don’t change anything of any meaning or syntax.
So secretaries are expected to ensure modifications are "not ... considered a change to the document" and "don’t change anything of any meaning or syntax" with the occasional help of the Editor as needed. In practice, as demonstrated here these things are subjective and can be interpreted differently by different individuals. In this case, both the Editor of the PSR and current secretaries looked at these changes and agreed they could be merged without errata votes.
I think we should consider changing the typos and formatting change process so that it's less subjective and more likely to result in stable specifications. Perhaps we could have a subcommittee in the CC that has to give blessing to merge changes to any approved specification.
Thanks again for keeping an eye on these things Larry,
Korvin