Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Review of Process 2020

*re-subscribes to Curmudgeon Weekly*

I concur with Mike's feedback.

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 10:39 AM Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org> wrote:

> On 12/3/19 1:08 PM, Michael Champion wrote:
> > Thanks Wendy and Carine, I thought I was being curmudgeonly!
>
> If so, then you're in good company!
>
> >
> > To be clear, I’m happy with the processes in the Everteal draft, I just
> don’t think it is worth trying to semantically distinguish between a
> “Recommendation that MAY be updated and enhanced in place” and a”
> Recommendation that MUST NOT be updated or enhanced in place.”  The
> WG+Director+AC can decide on a case by case basis whether to use the
> Everteal mechanism or go back to WD and create a new version of a
> Recommendation.    Likewise a charter MAY state a WG’s intention whether or
> not to use create “living” vs “stable” standards.  My basic point is: I see
> no reason that the target audience would care whether the Recommendation
> MAY be fixed or enhanced in place, they will care whether the
> Recommendation as it exists in /TR matches reality and meets the W3C
> quality criteria.
>
> I agree. For those who want to refer to a specific instance of a
> Recommendation, the dated link will always be available.
>
> --Wendy
>
> >
> > From: Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>
> > Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 9:56 AM
> > To: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
> > Cc: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>,
> public-w3process@w3.org <public-w3process@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <
> wseltzer@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
> > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Review of Process 2020
> > On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 05:10:21PM +0000, Michael Champion wrote:
> >>> It sounds a bit too close to "expendable" to me :D
> >>> Maybe we could indeed ask for more suggestions. I don't
> >>> think I have good ones: "elastic", "organic"
> >>> Ever-something seems a better idea, but we'd need to find the
> something.
> >>
> >> <rant>
> >> How about ???Recommendation.???  You have to ask yourselves whether the
> distinction between ???Recommendation??? and
> ???Living/Extensible/Expandable/Elastic/whatever Recommendation??? will
> matter in the real world.  Who (outside the W3C process community) will
> understand or care about the distinction?  If they do care to some extent,
> do they care enough to invest the time wordsmithing/building consensus on
> how to describe the distinction and defining the different processes?
> >
> >
> > +1
> > As I said in my earlier email:
> > "I like the subsequent proposal to merge and only have 1 kind of REC,
> > because since the start of the development of the evercolored process
> > I've seen a risk of getting a "low-class REC" compared to the other."
> >
>
>
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 <(617)%20715-4883>
> (office)
> Strategy Lead and Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> https://wendy.seltzer.org/        +1.617.863.0613 <(617)%20863-0613>
> (mobile)
>
>
>
>