Re: LCCR is a silly name

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 05:45:24 +1000, Marcos Caceres <> wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>> On 10/30/2013 1:02 PM, fantasai wrote:
>> > "Last Call Candidate Recommendation" is a silly name for a phase of
>> > the spec that typically lasts for years and typically involves the
>> > publication of multiple revisions.

Part of my goal is for groups not to do that, and instead figure out how  
to make a Recommendation, that is good enough to go on with while we wait  
for another version.

This is not really determined by this bit of the process, but by the way  
groups decide to work. But in balancing the "living standard" approach  
with the common requirement for a stable reference to agree e.g. a  
contract, I think it is helpful to have successively better  
Recommendations come out more often, than to wait years for some  
monolithic thing to achieve perfection (in part, because I think the  
latter goal is generally unrealistic anyway).

But that said...

>> > Let's just call it "Candidate Recommendation". Please.
>> >
>> > ~fantasai
>> +1.
>> When Chaals asked me for a name for LCCR, I suggested LC - but now that
>> I think about it, I agree that CR is the right name.
> Put me down for a CR too :)

I'm happy with that, IFF PSIG is easily convinced that the new "Candidate  
Recommendation" can be trivially associated with the step that the Patent  
Policy calls "Last Call". So I'll ask them...

(Yeah, I agree that LCCR is silly :) ).



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

Received on Thursday, 31 October 2013 07:41:54 UTC