- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:23:10 -0400
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 3/20/2019 6:17 PM, fantasai wrote: > On 3/20/19 10:41 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:37 AM Michael Champion >> <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com >> <mailto:Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>> wrote: >> >> > "Current work" in that model is a bunch of unmerged >> pull-requests, >> Unmerged pull requests don't have "truth" status. Active >> participants in spec development have >> to look at the unmerged PRs, sure, but implementers/website >> developers/framework developers/etc >> don’t need to, do they? >> >> +1 to this. Once there's sufficient belief that it represents >> consensus and is error-free (determinations a WG could decide their >> own rules for), they would get merged. I should have said "current >> truth" rather than "current work". > > For a spec to be REC-level, it needs > a) consensus under wide review > b) tests > c) two implementations > > I don't imagine that an Evergreen Recommendation would be any different, > therefore each change as it goes in must have all of the above. Indeed for ERs, we require: a) A marking that a feature has had sufficient time (180 days) for wide review b) ??? Do we need to add anything to indicate tests? c) A marking that a feature has implementation experience > However, > there's often a time gap between having a) and having b) and c). The > amount of time lag between agreement on a proposal and two demonstrably > interoperable implementation can vary greatly, from a few weeks for a > well-coordinated fix, to years. > > If the agreed changes are not known to implementers, then implementers > working on that area of the codebase will not know about them, and may > end up compounding the amount of work necessary in the future and/or > implement the wrong thing. Additionally, anyone reviewing a spec needs > to know about impending changes. It's one thing to have a PR with > tentative changes while you discuss them for a couple weeks to get the > wording right. It's another to have pending changes that represent > consensus hanging around in a PR for months and years. > > ~fantasai > >
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2019 22:23:14 UTC