W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > August 2019

Re: EverTeal

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 14:05:56 +0900
Message-Id: <480F612B-4C80-4CC9-9736-71B7896B2463@rivoal.net>
Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>


> On Aug 31, 2019, at 4:38, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> 
>> - Everblue allows for re-publishing RECs with informative materials that haven't been fully vetted yet, thus allowing more rapid iteration of the RECs
> 
> I would also like to pull down the errata annotation system to CR as well, fwiw. Just didn't want to add that to the email in case it was too many things to think about. :) It would allow the option to annotate proposed changes, if the WG is not yet sure they want to fold them into the mainline text and want to get more review first. E.g. there are some changes CSSWG makes that we agree on what we want to do, but we're not ready to finalize it until someone proves its possible.


PLH, since you list this as a downside of everteal, I'd like to point out that "everteal" isn't an alternative to everblue, but a complement. Everything that everblue adds about REC is perfectly compatible with what everteal wants to add to CR. If we were to adopt everteal (which I support), I'd want it to be in addition to the various fixes to the REC track already proposed under the everblue label.

—Florian
PS: incidentally, this is why we probably should not use the blue/green/teal names when presenting this to the AC. It give the impression that these are alternatives to choose from, even though that's not the case.
Received on Saturday, 31 August 2019 05:06:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:52 UTC