Consolidate maintenance by the Team of technical reports

[frivoal]

Merge into a single section all clauses about the Team maintaining technical reports in the absence of a chartered group, and uniformize the types of edits that they can make (class 1 changes, errata, and Team corrections).

See #120

---

Preview | Diff

[frivoal]

Reasoning for being a little stricter here than in the normal definition of class 2 changes: normally, if anybody, and in particular any member of the working group, disagrees that a change is class 2, then it isn't; you cannot publish it as class 2, and need to go through whatever hoops are needed for class 3 changes in your particular type of document.

However, here, because there's not Working Group, there isn't really anyone who has a pre-publication chance to say "wait a minute, that's not editorial". Because of that, the Team needs to be more conservative than others as to what class 2 changes it can make.

We could also ban class 2 changes other than errata and candidate amendments, but that would prevent the Team from fixing typos, spelling mistakes, affiliation or name changes… That seems stricter than necessary. Hence the middle ground attempted by this PR.

[TallTed]

Just a missing comma

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed #860, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Merge 860

The full IRC log of that discussion

subtopic: #860
Github: https://github.com//pull/860
Florian: Last time we had a proposal for closing an issue for updating Notes when a WG doesn't exist
... PLH noted inconsistency with maintaining Rec track docs
... This PR tries to harmonise
... It collapses all the team ability to update documents into one place
... The team can do markup changes and limited editorial changes
... There's some ambiguity, in a WG if anyone disagrees it's editorial, then it's not
... For the team there's no WG to debate if editorial, so it says you can do class 2 changes, but be conservative
q+
... Beyond class 2, they're team edits. Similar to candidate amendments, there's an annotation in the spec, then wait for a WG to fold it in
PLH: I like it. We do try to be conservative, due to patent policy considerations
... Another comment I heard is the team has a lot of power, not fair. No, we rely on the good judgement of the team, won't make corrections unless the group is OK
Florian: We don't want to have to create a WG to fix typos, change affiliations, so the team needs some ability
... If there's abuse, raise an FO
PLH: Do we say those are team decisions
... May want to make that explicit
Florian: Important to identify, in cases where team doesn't take action
Fantasai: If they feel strongly, they can set up a WG at that point
ack plh
s/take action/take action, e.g. in chartering case/
PROPOSED: Merge 860
RESOLVED: Merge 860
s/If they feel/Here, if the Team doesn't make an edit and people feel/
zakim, next agendum
agendum 2 -- Issues -- taken up [from plh]