RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Review of Process 2020

I agree with Mike

Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Lead
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>

From: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 1:09 PM
To: Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>
Cc: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>; Jeff Jaffe <jeff@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

Thanks Wendy and Carine, I thought I was being curmudgeonly!

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.

From: Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org<mailto:carine@w3.org>>
Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 9:56 AM
To: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>>
Cc: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net<mailto:florian@rivoal.net>>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org<mailto:jeff@w3.org>>, public-w3process@w3.org<mailto:public-w3process@w3.org> <public-w3process@w3.org<mailto:public-w3process@w3.org>>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org<mailto:wseltzer@w3.org>>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org<mailto: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."