- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 14:35:14 -0500
- To: Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>, Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
On 12/3/2019 12:56 PM, Carine Bournez wrote: > 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." Well there is a certain elegance to just calling everything a Recommendation. Everything is first class! To turn this question around - Florian and Fantasai - what would we lose if we called everything a REC? What process features would be harder or impossible to describe if we don't distinguish a REC from an EREC? > >
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2019 19:35:18 UTC