--- a/cover.html Wed Feb 25 09:42:09 2015 +0100
+++ b/cover.html Tue Mar 03 17:46:02 2015 -0800
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
<body>
<div class="head"><a href="http://www.w3.org/"><img alt="W3C" src="https://www.w3.org/Icons/w3c_home" height="48" width="72"></a>
<h1>W3C Draft Process Document</h1>
- <h2 class="notoc">25 February 2015 Editor's Draft</h2>
+ <h2 class="notoc">3 March 2015 Editor's Draft</h2>
<dl>
<dt>Latest Editor's version:</dt>
<dd> <a href="https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html">https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html</a></dd>
@@ -59,9 +59,10 @@
<p>Note that sections have not been renumbered from the current Operative version. This is intended to facilitate comparison for review.
Renumbering will occur before adoption of a New Process document.</p>
<p>In <em>this draft</em> the default channel for <a href="#ACReview">AC review</a> has been removed in favor of a requirement for
- each review to specify a default (<a href="http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/154">ISSUE-154</a>), and a procedure for
- <a href="#resignation">resignation</a> from Working (and Interest Groups has been provided (<a href="http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/151">ISSUE-151</a>).
- A <a href="#changes">change history</a> (compared to the 2014 Process Document) forms part of the draft.</p>
+ each review to specify a default (<a href="http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/154">ISSUE-154</a>), a procedure for <a
+ href="#resignation">resignation</a> from Working (and Interest Groups has been provided (<a href="http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/151">ISSUE-151</a>),
+ and <a href="http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/152">ISSUE-152</a> is described. A <a href="#changes">change history</a>
+ (compared to the 2014 Process Document) forms part of the draft.</p>
<p>The document will continue to be developed in preparation for adopting a revised process in 2015. A further revision is anticipated,
to be adopted in 2016.</p>
<p>Comment is invited on the draft. Please send comments to <a href="mailto:public-w3process@w3.org">public-w3process@w3.org</a> (<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/">Mailing
@@ -1644,6 +1645,13 @@
<p>An erratum is resolved by an informative, "proposed" correction generated by the Working Group. A correction becomes part of the
Recommendation by the process for Revising a Recommendation described in the next section.</p>
<h4 id="revised-rec">7.7.2 Revising a Recommendation</h4>
+ <p class="issue"><a href="http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/152">Issue-152</a> concerns a change made in <a href="http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#revised-rec">Process2014</a>
+ that requires Edited Recommendations consisting solely of “editorial changes” to go through an additional step, publication as a
+ Proposed Recommendation, prior to publication as a Recommendation. There are two aspects of this issue: (1) whether “editorial
+ change” is sufficiently well defined that it can be validate by a simple process (as it was in <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/">Process2005</a>)
+ and (2) whether patent licensing considerations should require all potential Recommendations to have a Call for Exclusions on their
+ content. See the <a href="http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/152">issue entry</a> and its associated notes and
+ emails for additional detail on the discussion.</p>
<p>A Working group <em class="rfc2119">may</em> request republication of a Recommendation, or W3C <em class="rfc2119">may</em>
republish a Recommendation, to make corrections that do not result in any changes to the text of the specification.</p>
<p><a href="#editorial-change">Editorial changes</a> to a Recommendation require no technical review of the proposed changes. A