Solidify and document process for spec changes and ratification

Originally reported on Google Code with ID 101

In issue 54 and during the 10/19/12 telecon it was discussed that our current process
for updating and ratifying the specifications are vague, scattered and incomplete.


Appendix A contains some process verbiage left-over from 1.2 (which was originally
intended to apply only to library extensions). The wiki at http://code.google.com/p/upc-specification/wiki/UPCSpecProcedures
outlines procedures for updating the committee's working draft. There is no written
procedure for ratification of the final specification.

These process matters need to worked out and formally documented. There is debate as
to whether any process material should appear in the actual specification (eg expanding
the current fragment in Appendix A) or should follow the ISO model and appear elsewhere
in a separate document(s). I personally favor the latter, since the process is completely
irrelevant to readers of the ratified document, and may very well be subject to change
as each new committee is convened to produce a new specification.

Jim has offered to track down process examples from ISO or elsewhere to help guide
us in this respect.

Marking this as milestone 1.3 as we need to at least work out the ratification process
we'll be using for that version.

Reported by danbonachea on 2012-10-23 23:26:42

Comments (4)