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