Change Cascade Across Repositories
RecordWeb's work is split across three repositories with different levels of formality: RWP (the normative protocol specification), RWC (the non-normative concept explainer), and home (the general-audience documentation and landing site). To keep these consistent without imposing unnecessary process overhead, changes follow one of three tracks depending on where they originate:
Normative track (originates in RWP). An Issue is opened in rwp. If the change has implications for the concept explainer or the general documentation, the Issue must include a section describing the required follow-up changes in rwc and/or home. The Issue goes through the standard Call for Consensus (CfC) process. Once consensus is reached, rwp is updated first, followed by the corresponding updates to rwc and home as described in the Issue.
Conceptual track (originates in RWC). An Issue is opened in rwc. If it has implications for home, the Issue must include a section describing the required follow-up. The Issue goes through CfC. Once consensus is reached, rwc is updated, followed by home.
Descriptive track (originates in home). Changes to home that are purely descriptive (wording, structure, illustrative examples, translations) do not require CfC and may be made directly, optionally preceded by an Issue for discussion.
Directionality. Change proposals only flow downward: rwp may require changes in rwc and home; rwc may require changes in home; home may never require changes in rwc or rwp. If a discussion in a lower-tier repository (e.g. home) reveals that the underlying issue is actually conceptual or normative, the Issue is not moved or relabeled. Instead, it is closed with a comment explaining the reclassification, and a new Issue is opened in the appropriate repository (rwc or rwp), cross-linked in both directions. The original discussion remains accessible via that link.
Classification responsibility. Where it is unclear whether a change is normative, conceptual, or purely descriptive, the Editors decide the classification. Contributors are encouraged to flag this uncertainty explicitly in the Issue rather than guess.
Change Cascade Across Repositories
RecordWeb's work is split across three repositories with different levels of formality: RWP (the normative protocol specification), RWC (the non-normative concept explainer), and home (the general-audience documentation and landing site). To keep these consistent without imposing unnecessary process overhead, changes follow one of three tracks depending on where they originate:
Normative track (originates in RWP). An Issue is opened in
rwp. If the change has implications for the concept explainer or the general documentation, the Issue must include a section describing the required follow-up changes inrwcand/orhome. The Issue goes through the standard Call for Consensus (CfC) process. Once consensus is reached,rwpis updated first, followed by the corresponding updates torwcandhomeas described in the Issue.Conceptual track (originates in RWC). An Issue is opened in
rwc. If it has implications forhome, the Issue must include a section describing the required follow-up. The Issue goes through CfC. Once consensus is reached,rwcis updated, followed byhome.Descriptive track (originates in home). Changes to
homethat are purely descriptive (wording, structure, illustrative examples, translations) do not require CfC and may be made directly, optionally preceded by an Issue for discussion.Directionality. Change proposals only flow downward:
rwpmay require changes inrwcandhome;rwcmay require changes inhome;homemay never require changes inrwcorrwp. If a discussion in a lower-tier repository (e.g.home) reveals that the underlying issue is actually conceptual or normative, the Issue is not moved or relabeled. Instead, it is closed with a comment explaining the reclassification, and a new Issue is opened in the appropriate repository (rwcorrwp), cross-linked in both directions. The original discussion remains accessible via that link.Classification responsibility. Where it is unclear whether a change is normative, conceptual, or purely descriptive, the Editors decide the classification. Contributors are encouraged to flag this uncertainty explicitly in the Issue rather than guess.