Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: EverTeal

On 11/8/19 8:41 AM, Michael Champion wrote:
>> Alternatively, "ever-eXtending REC"? (This usage of X has
> 
>> precedent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMDF_(E-book_format)) 
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FXMDF_(E-book_format))&data=02%7C01%7Cmichael.champion%40microsoft.com%7Cdaa9359263d347877d1708d764131d65%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637087905584349996&sdata=5JLWgP9mAvgyZEKVgoV6BGDtha7XRHV7kaDH1oOVuHE%3D&reserved=0> ;-)
> 
>> Anyone else have an opinion?
> 
> I think you’re going down the wrong path here.  My pushback is similar to my 
> pushback on the “Evergreen Track” – it’s too confusing to have all these 
> variations on the Process that must be chosen at Charter time.  I’m fine with 
> the basics of EverTeal, but why not give WGs the option of moving down one 
> “track” or another – to (traditional) Recommendation, a Recommendation that 
> can be edited in place so long as certain requirements are met,  CR with 
> Patent Commitments, etc. – at appropriate places in a single process?
> 
> I don’t want to be too transparent on a public list, but those with Member 
> access can see how many people actually vote in the various WG 
> creation/transition ballots.  That implies to me that the AC  already either 
> trusts WGs to do the right thing so long as the Team thinks the process is 
> being followed, and/or is overwhelmed by the complexity and nitpicky details 
> of the current process. So I think I can safely predict that the AC doesn’t 
> want a bunch of additional tracks to configure in the Process, they want it to 
> work efficiently to create specs that reflect reality.
> 
> So, fine, create a way to create extensible/ever-extending/whatever 
> Recommendations, but make that part of a unified Process.  I don’t believe the 
> AC will  care about the distinction between these and traditional immutable 
> Recommendations to give useful feedback during the charter ballot.  It’s more 
> likely to be  just one more thing to bikeshed about and drive away people who 
> just want to sit down with their industry counterparts and figure out how to 
> make their products work together.

It's not a different track, it's just a variant on the REC status that allows 
it to accumulate new features, and is otherwise exactly the same as a REC.

As for "confusing to have all these variations" in the charter, there's only 
this one variation. And the charter can allow the WG to choose, it's just that 
if there's a reason for the charter to restrict itself, it can do that.

~fantasai

Received on Monday, 11 November 2019 21:34:56 UTC