I won't be able to make the Roadmap call so let me say that I agree with not moving sections about already published documents to the appendix. I liked the idea mentioned in the last call of including information about such documents within the entry of the in-progress version, if any. Otherwise the entry of a published document could be left as-is in the Roadmap, or if obsolete deleted. An alternative is to produce a summary table for each major section (Information/Recommendation/Profile etc) with information about already published documents. Andreas Christopher Jordan wrote:
One correction regarding yesterday's discussion - I reviewed the minutes from the last Roadmap call, (I didn't take the minutes for that call so it slipped my mind more easily) and I was completely incorrect regarding the placement of the WSRF Profile document in the appendix. Hiro's request was, apparently, that we place published documents in the appendix.
I think there's some question/complexity regarding the criteria by which we place documents referenced in the roadmap into the appendix, so I'm going to bring this up for further discussion in tomorrow's Roadmap call. Anyone with comments or suggestions regarding the placement of published documents should either send them to me via e-mail, or of course feel free to join the call tomorrow. For me, I guess, the crucial questions are what constitutes a "published document" - something that we don't intend to produce a second version of? And if we're going to take this route, do we then need to completely replicate the structure of the document WRT normative vs informational documents and profiles? And if so, at what point does the appendix become so unwieldy that it should really just be part of the main document? Just some thoughts off the top of my head.
Details regarding tomorrow's call will follow shortly.
-- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd