http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#rec-modify

In reviewing Process section 7.7.2 in relation to another thread, I notice a few places where the text isn't clear.

#1) "
In the latter two cases, the resulting Recommendation may be called an Edited Recommendation."

It isn't clear what the "latter two cases" are.  The reader has to go back and reconstruct what the different cases are to figure out what the last two are.  In the 2005 version of the process there used to be a list.  I'd guess the current text was based on a different shorter list in an editor's draft.  It's better to leave out the list (to keep it shorter), but this wording needs to change.

"editorial" and "substantive" changes had already been defined (they are the two cases referred to in the current text).

Suggested text:

"Where there have been editorial or substantive changes,
the resulting Recommendation may be called an Edited Recommendation"

#2) "
When requesting the publication of an edited Recommendation as described in this section, in addition to meeting the requirements for the relevant maturity level, a Working Group"

There should be a ":" after "Group".

"Edited Recommendation" is a term already used as in #1 above where someone may choose to have that in the title.  But, "
edited Recommendation" with lower case "e" does not mean those instances where they've chosen to use that name.  What's meant there is either of the two cases where the text of the spec is modified (not the first case where they're patching broken links) regardless of whether they chose to use the "Edited" name.  Using the same words with upper or lower case to mean two different things is confusing.

Suggested text:
"
When requesting the publication of a  Recommendation where the specification text has been modified as described above, in addition to meeting the requirements for the relevant maturity level, a Working Group:"

#3) "
should address all recorded errata."

I assume "address" includes looked at and decided to defer until the next time because it isn't clear what to do or defer because the errata is a feature request.   With it being "should" this seems fairly meaningless.   If left in, it could be changed to a requirement to explain why errata weren't included.

Suggested text:
"should indicate which errata were taken care of in the updated REC and why any others were not."