Re: Wrong information given at the WG Call yesterday

*If* we successfully re-charter, we *might* have time for another CR after
2.
I do not want to count on one, so "Let's not go into a CR2 on any document
if we don't feel that we
are completely, 100% done with it?" should definitely should be our
strategy.

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 10:31 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 11:43 AM Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> >> Good to know that I'm not going insane (yet)...
> >
> > Instead, I was the one going insane…
>
> :) ... and I expect to be there by the time we hit Proposed Rec. :P
>
> > Does that mean "no normative changes to the specification"? If so, all
> > of our specs will have suffered at least one normative change during
> > CR1 (which is expected).
> >
> > No, I believe this means that there was no fundamental change in the
> direction of the specification. Say, we decide that the VCDM model should
> be (also) expressed in XML… that would be a new requirement.
>
> Would changing the media type constitute a "fundamental change", or
> refactoring the Controller Document stuff into a new spec? I expect
> some of us might answer differently.
>
> Not a big deal right now, and as long as the Editors make sure that
> they are meticulous about tracking the sorts of changes we're making,
> it'll make it easier to do the Transition Request even if we can't do
> the automatic one. We can just plan for the worst case scenario and
> try to minimize the CRs that we do.
>
> IOW, "Let's not go into a CR2 on any document if we don't feel that we
> are completely, 100% done with it?" <-- should that be our strategy?
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
>