Re: On latest everblue draft

> On Oct 25, 2019, at 15:45, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 24, 2019, at 15:45, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:
> 
>> - didn't we agree to not trigger Call for Exclusions for the same document more than once every 6 months?
> 
> Right. Still need to add that. I think this ought to be a should, so that we have a little bit of flexibility to meet some externally imposed deadline (like when WCAG needs to be ready before a certain date to serve as the basis for legislation somewhere), or about publishing after 5.8 months to avoid longer delays due the Christmas break or some such.
> 
>> - it ought to be possible to move from a  Candidate Recommendation Update Draft (CRU) to Proposed Recommendation without forcing a new Candidate Recommendation Review Snapshot (CRS), as long as no substantive changes where introduced in the CRU since the previous CRS.
> 
> Good point. Will add.
> 
>> A few folks were suggesting yesterday that it was difficult to understand the proposal. I'd say that it's going to be difficult for Groups to understand or remember the different flavors we'll have within the REC. It's already difficult for them to remember those things with Process 2019... Imho, we'll need to present the materials from the point of use cases, rather rather then Process modifications, ie a version of the REC track for busy people. Depending on the nature of the technology or the nature of the changes, some path will be better than others. For LS folks, maintaining their specs as a Candidate Recommendation at all time will be the way to go. For Groups making incremental changes and/or interested in the Recommendation status, the full REC track or a set of REC updates will be the right fit, depending on the nature of the changes and the signal to the community.

Addressed these two comments in the draft. Let me know if it's still a problem.

—Florian

Received on Monday, 4 November 2019 06:00:37 UTC