- From: Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 17:56:34 +0000
- To: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 05:10:21PM +0000, Michael Champion wrote: > > It sounds a bit too close to "expendable" to me :D > > Maybe we could indeed ask for more suggestions. I don't > > think I have good ones: "elastic", "organic" > > Ever-something seems a better idea, but we'd need to find the something. > > <rant> > How about ???Recommendation.??? You have to ask yourselves whether the distinction between ???Recommendation??? and ???Living/Extensible/Expandable/Elastic/whatever Recommendation??? will matter in the real world. Who (outside the W3C process community) will understand or care about the distinction? If they do care to some extent, do they care enough to invest the time wordsmithing/building consensus on how to describe the distinction and defining the different processes? +1 As I said in my earlier email: "I like the subsequent proposal to merge and only have 1 kind of REC, because since the start of the development of the evercolored process I've seen a risk of getting a "low-class REC" compared to the other."
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2019 17:56:38 UTC