Re: Review of Process 2020

On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 04:38:22PM -0500, fantasai wrote:
> 
> Florian did mention "Ever-extending" as a possibility (referencing
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMDF_(E-book_format)) ), if you're looking for
> Ever-something. :)

We won't really always only extend, I suppose (the process already had
whatever was needed to do that, in fact).

[...]

> > > s/CR Update Draft/CR Update/
> > > s/CR Review Snapshot/CR Snapshot/
> > 
> > I find this distinction still rather confusing (just my 2 cents).
> > The goal of having it is unclear in the document.
> 
> The Snapshot has Director's approval and CR-type patent implications
> (because it triggers an exclusion opportunity), and the Update does not (is
> equivalent to a WD).

I understood the distinction, but essentially by reading the other
documents. The Snapshot is essentially what a CR is currently, so 
I don't see the need for a new term. The 'editorial CRs' and 'CR update|draft'
are more confusing terms. 

> There's (at least) two reasons for this:
> 1. The lawyers working on the WHATWG policy concluded that having snapshots
> was what they were willing to work with, so we're adopting the same PP model
> 2. This is a close model to the process we have today: CR does not change,
> other than to change its name to "CR Snapshot", and the ED gets published on
> /TR as the "CR Update".

IMHO, that's our current model. The addition of non-CfE-triggering CRs
was already done a few years ago, even if the process was clarified
after the facts.
The real addition of Process2020 is that some CRs with substantial changes 
will be non-CfE-triggering. "Draft" seemed a good word to describe
the unfinished state of those. "CR Update" is way too loose, it seems
it could apply to anything published as CR (CfE-triggering, editorial or
draft).

[...] 
> As the current PP has a facility for rescinding specifications, I think it's
> a fair assumption that it will continue to have such a process.
> 
> As for applying licensing obligations to CRs in addition to RECs, this is
> the main purpose for updating the PP, and one of the goals of the Process
> 2020 update. If we're not going to do make that change, there's no reason to
> update the PP.

It seems that we could just reference the current PP anyway. If the 
PP changes it will refer to the new process.

> As for working under the assumption of an updated PP: we don't have time to
> wait for PSIG to adopt a new PP and then start working on Process edits to
> match. We have to work in parallel. If for some reason we can't update the
> PP, it's easy to remove the section. It's less easy to add it later when
> we're under a time crunch.

Maybe I'm just too pessimistic on the possibility to get the PP changed
in a timely manner, but I doubt it will be changed before this process
version.

Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2019 08:36:54 UTC