> On Mar 15, 2019, at 4:19, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: > > Aside from FO, consensus might also be different between REC track and Evergreen. REC track has formal steps of advancement and generally WGs have formal CfC's that a document is ready for advancement. So a document won't get endorsement by W3C without a formal CfC. On the Evergreen track, there is continuous W3C endorsement of an ER, but I don't envisage daily CFC's in an Evergreen WG. > I don't see why an Evergreen track would necessarily need less or more CFC's than the REC track. The main thing about evergreen is about simplifying publication. In the existing REC track, working group operating under the current process and under the guidance of their chair can and do put out Working Drafts at a fast pace, for now they cannot do that with CRs or RECs, but for WDs there's no problem. Different groups have different modalities about how they do that, and strike a different balance in terms of the autonomy of the Editor, but I see no reason to believe this would be any different under evergreen. Email/github plus weekly calls is a perfectly fine way to determine what should go into the ER if that's what one group wants to do. So is asynchronous CfC if that's what they want to do. The process as it is is flexible enough to let Groups and their chairs determine what is consensual and should go into the draft in a productive way. —Florian
Received on Friday, 15 March 2019 04:46:32 UTC