On latest everblue draft

Feedback on

- "a Candidate Recommendation Review Snapshot should be published within 
24 months of the Working Group accepting any proposal for a substantive 
change (and preferably sooner)."

   are we sure we want a SHOULD here and not a MUST? 2 years is a long 
time since the last substantive change already... I guess I'm fine with 
a SHOULD start with and we can adjust later on based on experience.

- didn't we agree to not trigger Call for Exclusions for the same 
document more than once every 6 months?

- 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.

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.


Received on Thursday, 24 October 2019 06:45:34 UTC