Talk:Versioning

This wiki is intended to encourage robust debate around any changes which may be required to the New Zealand Government Web Standards (in response to new technology or other drivers). We need to agree on a consultation and versioning process that is responsive to change but doesn't increase the compliance burden on agencies.

Below are some suggestions on versioning to kick off the discussion - please feel free to edit or make suggestions ...

Review cycle (draft for comment)

1. Issue or suggestion raised and tagged [[Category:For Consultation]] (so it shows up on the homepage)
2. Discussion occurs on the wiki, including opportunity to submit examples of good practice
3. Consensus reached or sufficient information collected to refer the issue to the Web Standards Working Group (relevant standard or recommendation is tagged [[Category:Under Review]])
4. Working Group consider the suggestions made and draft a proposed change to a standard or recommendation (or agree that no course of action is required)

If no change is proposed:

1. Working Group's rationale for not making any change will be published

If a change is being proposed:

1. Proposal published for comment
2. Feedback will be consolidated and a proposal finalised
3. Web Standards Working Group recommend to the e-GIF Management Committee that the Standards be amended
4. Revised standard published on the wiki (and labelled as revised eg: Revised Standard 18.1)

Revisions would happen throughout the course of the year, with the aim of completing any review within six months of the issue being raised.

Versioning and compliance cycle (draft for comment)

1. Every February, all the revisions are adopted into a new official version of the Web Standards
2. Compliance with the new version of the Web Standards becomes mandatory in July of the following year (giving agencies a minimum of 16 months to comply with any changes to the Web Standards).

This way agencies could choose to adopt the revised standards as soon as they become available but they would not need to comply with the revisions until the year after the revisions have been incorporated into a new version. --AnneMarie 18:43, 9 October 2007 (NZDT)

I'm wondering if in fact a 12 month period for compliance is better, that way February becomes the month for both complying with last years updates, as well as hearing about the next ones. Agencies need to get into a cycle of regularly enhancing sites, and I worry that 16 months takes the pressure off too much. Andy Neale 09:47, 5 November 2007 (NZDT)

This all makes sense to me. Once an audit process has been finalised, it might be worth mentioning on this page - ie the dates that an audit is likely to happen (if this is the system adopted)? Also, presumably an audit would need to allow for compliance with revised standards during the pre-mandatory period? This could be important in the case where an agreed-but-not-yet-mandatory change makes something easier to do or no longer required. Jamie Mackay 17:25, 24 October 2007 (NZDT)

I also agree this makes sense. We need to make sure the entire process is transparent - so that also includes publishing any justification for not making a change to a standard. Agencies need the opportunity to plan ahead and schedule any remedial work. For many agencies this will also require sufficient time to go through the budgeting cycle. Jamie's comment about the effect on audits needs to be considered. Nathan Wall 23:38, 24 October 2007 (NZDT)

Just thinking about how to flag revised / revision pages. Do the info boxes at the top of the pages for Standard 1.1 and the self audit checklist work for you guys? Could we flag revisions the same way? Except in big bright letters or something? --Rowan 23:02, 29 October 2007 (NZDT)

I think flagging revisions would be a workable idea - would need to be visually different to other "flags" - of course we would have to follow the rules about not relying on colour alone -- Nathan Wall 10:35, 30 October 2007 (NZDT)

And have sufficient contrast :-) So we need three flags, right?

• One for when a Standard is under review
• One saying "This std has been revised [link to the revision]"
• One saying "This is a revision due to come into effect xxx [link to the current mandated version]"

Flags would take the pace of the current flags on the stds pages (with the little e-gif logo on them)? Or in addition to?

That should address the revision process, shouldn't it?? --Rowan 12:00, 30 October 2007 (NZDT)

This system of revision flags is now in place - see Revised Standard 18.1 for an example of this. --AnneMarie Curtis 19:55, 5 November 2007 (NZDT)

About this wiki | Contact us | Terms of use | Disclaimer | Copyright policy | Privacy and security