Re: Continuous Development Process TPAC Slides

> On Sep 6, 2019, at 4:10, Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> I like the presentation very much up until the "Additional Alternate Track" section.  
> It seems to reflect the state of discussion before the Everteal proposal came out
> It talks about an alternative "track" rather than the incremental changes to the CR process described in the Everteal proposal.  I still think this is way too heavyweight and confusing, see issues 267, 271, 272
Everteal is included, that's slide 12. The rest of ever teal is the same as everblue, so that's slides 10,11,13,14

> It uses the "Evergreen" word, and I think there's agreement that all flavors of Ever* are internal labels that will distract and confuse the TPAC audiences
I think that what we should not do is contrast ever-something with ever-somethingelse. If it's only a singe one of them, no contrast is implied, so I'm fine with that.


> I'd suggest just providing a reference to the Everteal proposal and not trying to complicate the discussions at TPAC (at least the one to the AC). Maybe Everteal should get it's own Plenary Day breakout since it's the most likely to need input from the broad community / groups that are seeking a Living Standards-like option?
> 
> Bottom line: Focus on the patent policy fixes and the "Everblue" changes that address real problems in the process; Evergreen/Everteal is less "baked" and will probably confuse people who haven't followed the AB / Process CG discussion.  Note the remaining problems and encourage people to engage in the Process CG to find solutions that work for the broad community. 

It focuses on everblue+everteal (without naming them, to avoid creating the assumption that there are alternatives), and mentions that evegreen as a thing we considered and could adopt, but may not need given the rest.

I think that's the right way to go.

—Florian