W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > October 2013

Re: LCCR is a silly name

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:51:32 -0700
Message-ID: <5272DEF4.8080007@linux.intel.com>
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
CC: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, public-w3process@w3.org
The important part of Last Call for the patent policy is clear notice to 
those that it effects that the period for exclusions has started and 
when it ends.

Each time a Candidate Rec is published, if the status section had a 
sentence that said something in bold letters like "This is a Last Call 
publication as described in Section 4 of the W3C Patent Policy." - and 
have the usual notices that get sent out for that.

It doesn't need to be in the title of the document as long as it is 
clear to everyone who needs to know when it happens.  What drives our 
internal review is getting that email.

Dropping some stages and leaving the familiar CR name I think helps get 
across that this is a simplification to the larger community. So, I hope 
PSIG doesn't raise objections to the simpler name.

   Wayne

On 10/30/2013 3:41 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 05:45:24 +1000, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/30/2013 1:02 PM, fantasai wrote:
>>> > "Last Call Candidate Recommendation" is a silly name for a phase of
>>> > the spec that typically lasts for years and typically involves the
>>> > publication of multiple revisions.
>
> [aside...]
> Part of my goal is for groups not to do that, and instead figure out 
> how to make a Recommendation, that is good enough to go on with while 
> we wait for another version.
>
> This is not really determined by this bit of the process, but by the 
> way groups decide to work. But in balancing the "living standard" 
> approach with the common requirement for a stable reference to agree 
> e.g. a contract, I think it is helpful to have successively better 
> Recommendations come out more often, than to wait years for some 
> monolithic thing to achieve perfection (in part, because I think the 
> latter goal is generally unrealistic anyway).
>
> But that said...
>
>>> > Let's just call it "Candidate Recommendation". Please.
>>> >
>>> > ~fantasai
>>> +1.
>>>
>>> When Chaals asked me for a name for LCCR, I suggested LC - but now that
>>> I think about it, I agree that CR is the right name.
>>
>> Put me down for a CR too :)
>
> I'm happy with that, IFF PSIG is easily convinced that the new 
> "Candidate Recommendation" can be trivially associated with the step 
> that the Patent Policy calls "Last Call". So I'll ask them...
>
> (Yeah, I agree that LCCR is silly :) ).
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2013 22:52:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:09 UTC