Re: Transition to a revised Technical Report Development Process [W3Process-ISSUE-39, W3Process-ACTION-10, proposal]

On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 11:27:08 +0100, David Singer <> wrote:

> On Nov 5, 2013, at 16:28 , Charles McCathie Nevile  
> <> wrote:
>>> That's fine.  Just give people a name they can use (a consistent name)  
>>> if they wish.
>> How about "getting ready for LCCR"?
> a name for the *document* that they believe is their candidate.

"Proposed Last Call draft"? "Editor's draft proposal for CR"? "The draft  
before the draft that will be proposed as CR"? "Working Draft that seems  
to resolve all known open issues but needs a linkcheck before we propose  
it for CR"?

I'm unclear why a working draft needs a particular name, and sceptical  
that adding such names to the process is helpful.

The status section is there to clarify exactly where a document is up to,  
when it is between the clearly defined stages. And Working Groups are  
meant to be freer to determine how they want to handle the progression.  
Against that, I'd rather not define lots of stage names.

If there are clear requests based on multiple groups doing the same thing  
I think we should reconsider this question. I haven't seen that to date.



Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex         Find more at

Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2013 10:55:02 UTC