[patwg-charter] Mark single-implementation features "at risk" instead of distinguishing the CR-draft stage (#42)

jyasskin has just created a new issue for https://github.com/patcg/patwg-charter:

== Mark single-implementation features "at risk" instead of distinguishing the CR-draft stage ==
In drafting the PATWG charter, I suggested the language that says
> The WG will progress its normative specifications through the following standardization process: [First Public Working Draft](https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#RecsWD), [Working Draft](https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#RecsWD), [Candidate Recommendation Draft](https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#candidate-recommendation-draft), and [Candidate Recommendation Snapshot](https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#candidate-recommendation-snapshot). It is expected that to reach the Candidate Recommendation Snapshot stage, each normative specification is expected to have [at least two independent implementations](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/#implementation-experience) of every feature defined in the specification.

in order to provide separate stages for
1. CR Draft: a place the WG can declare that some features were ready to implement without requiring them to have already been implemented twice, and
2. CR Snapshot: a place the WG can declare that features have been interoperably implemented.

@tantek pointed out in his [charter review](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2022Sep/0006.html) that the Process doesn't really endorse this separation, and separately he pointed out that the CSSWG marks features "at risk" when they're in the state I used CR Drafts to accommodate. I suggest we solve the Process problem by replacing the above language with something like

> ... It is expected that in Candidate Recommendations, every feature that doesn't have [at least two independent implementations](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/#implementation-experience) will be clearly marked "at risk".

I haven't included Tantek's suggested wording about test suites here because it's orthogonal to this issue, but I don't have any problem with it.

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/patwg-charter/issues/42 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2022 21:55:54 UTC