On 3/15/2019 12:46 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote: > > >> On Mar 15, 2019, at 4:19, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org >> <mailto: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. I agree with your process-level observations. WDs can be published at a fast pace and ERs can be published at a fast pace. W3C does not confer "status" to WDs; they are not "Recommended" for usage. In this proposal W3C would confer status to ERs. Ordinarily W3C does not confer status without a formal CfC of a WG. I'm proposing that for ERs we do not require a formal CfC, relying instead on procedural consensus. > > —Florian
Received on Friday, 15 March 2019 13:08:24 UTC