V1.1.0: CX Guidelines Renamed File

[perlboy]

Description

Following release to the Slate site of V1.1.0 yesterday we have now initiated analysis of changes using the diff previously provided in #56.

With reference to the file CX-Standards-v1.1.0.pdf this appears to be a simple rename of the previous CX Standards v1.0.1. This rename is not noted in the existing changelog.

We recommend binaries which are not changed are not renamed but rather release notes specifically designate existing guidance is appropriate.

Area Affected

pdfs/

Change Proposed

Revert rename of file to original filename and only update binary attachment versions when they are actually changed.

[CDR-API-Stream]

This change was deliberate to avoid confusion as to whether the CX Guidelines are applicable for the latest versions fo the standards. We are currently discussing with the CX team how to handle this going forward.

The change proposed will not be made.

[perlboy]

This change was deliberate to avoid confusion as to whether the CX Guidelines are applicable for the latest versions fo the standards. We are currently discussing with the CX team how to handle this going forward.

If this is the case then the confusing outcome now is that the filename now references v1.1.0 but the document itself on it's first page states Version 1.0.1. This file naming is also not in sync with the published CX documents:

In traditional Prince2 environments this issue is ameliorated using a product release packaging that explicitly lists a set of release versions. Within CDS the most direct analogy was what was historically done through the Month YYYY Working Draft style versions used by the July, May, Christmas and November working drafts.

[perlboy]

Preamble: Biza currently has 42 open issues within Standards Maintenance. In an effort to optimise our own backlog we are closing those which have no actual response from the DSB. They may be reopened at a later time or referenced when the issues are highlighted by third parties.

No response has been received on this and the DSB does not appear to have shown interest in resolving it.