Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: EverTeal

> It's not a different track, it's just a variant on the REC status that allows
> it to accumulate new features, and is otherwise exactly the same as a REC.

OK, great. But that sorta demonstrates my point that this is confusing since the word “track” is overloaded .

> And the charter can allow the WG to choose, it's just that
> if there's a reason for the charter to restrict itself, it can do that.

My main point in this thread is there’s no reason to add this “knob” to the process for the charter writers to twiddle and the AC to approve.  I’m all for giving WG’s the right to use, or not use, the option of updating a Recommendation in place in the way EverTeal proposes.  I just don’t see any reason to a) lock this option in or out at charter time, and b) ask the AC for permission to use the option or not.

If there’s a use case for the charter / AC insisting that a WG restrict itself from using the new EverTeal process improvements, I’m not seeing it.  A large majority of the AC ignores charter ballots unless there is some juicy “political” angle to argue about, and the team has to beat the bushes (or extend the ballot) to meet the 5% threshold.  So I don’t see any pent up demand from the AC to micromanage charters.

Maybe there are a few on the AC who don’t like Living Standards and you think won’t object to EverTeal if it is “behind a flag” as it were an experimental browser feature.    I think it would be best in the long run to either persuade them during the Process 202x discussion, or let the Director decide whether to support their objections.

But whatever, I’m not going to keep pushing back if a critical mass of the CG thinks the charter writers and the AC want to be able to twiddle this knob.



From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Monday, November 11, 2019 at 1:35 PM
To: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Cc: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: EverTeal
On 11/8/19 8:41 AM, Michael Champion wrote:
>> Alternatively, "ever-eXtending REC"? (This usage of X has
>
>> precedent: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FXMDF_(E-book_format&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cmichael.champion%40microsoft.com%7C85edcc2be8cd4f8f6a5208d766ef0a8b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637091049174677156&amp;sdata=rhHrPV21kX8F4y9W%2Fwj%2B%2FmTEi6rBnK9B%2FhcLXEmtpNg%3D&amp;reserved=0))
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FXMDF_(E-book_format))&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cmichael.champion%40microsoft.com%7C85edcc2be8cd4f8f6a5208d766ef0a8b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637091049174677156&amp;sdata=Bxq3xNh%2BVP76KiOZbDJlzkGuuzsHZAc8j%2FpG22UZN4A%3D&amp;reserved=0> ;-<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FXMDF_(E-book_format))&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cmichael.champion%40microsoft.com%7C85edcc2be8cd4f8f6a5208d766ef0a8b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637091049174677156&amp;sdata=Bxq3xNh%2BVP76KiOZbDJlzkGuuzsHZAc8j%2FpG22UZN4A%3D&amp;reserved=0%3e ;->)
>
>> Anyone else have an opinion?
>
> I think you’re going down the wrong path here.  My pushback is similar to my
> pushback on the “Evergreen Track” – it’s too confusing to have all these
> variations on the Process that must be chosen at Charter time.  I’m fine with
> the basics of EverTeal, but why not give WGs the option of moving down one
> “track” or another – to (traditional) Recommendation, a Recommendation that
> can be edited in place so long as certain requirements are met,  CR with
> Patent Commitments, etc. – at appropriate places in a single process?
>
> I don’t want to be too transparent on a public list, but those with Member
> access can see how many people actually vote in the various WG
> creation/transition ballots.  That implies to me that the AC  already either
> trusts WGs to do the right thing so long as the Team thinks the process is
> being followed, and/or is overwhelmed by the complexity and nitpicky details
> of the current process. So I think I can safely predict that the AC doesn’t
> want a bunch of additional tracks to configure in the Process, they want it to
> work efficiently to create specs that reflect reality.
>
> So, fine, create a way to create extensible/ever-extending/whatever
> Recommendations, but make that part of a unified Process.  I don’t believe the
> AC will  care about the distinction between these and traditional immutable
> Recommendations to give useful feedback during the charter ballot.  It’s more
> likely to be  just one more thing to bikeshed about and drive away people who
> just want to sit down with their industry counterparts and figure out how to
> make their products work together.

It's not a different track, it's just a variant on the REC status that allows
it to accumulate new features, and is otherwise exactly the same as a REC.

As for "confusing to have all these variations" in the charter, there's only
this one variation. And the charter can allow the WG to choose, it's just that
if there's a reason for the charter to restrict itself, it can do that.

~fantasai