Re: Continuous Development Process TPAC Slides

> Everteal is included, that's slide 12.

Hmm, I see now.  But that wasn't obvious to me from reading the deck a few days after reading the Everteal proposal.  Some editorial suggestions.

"Decouple CR publications from CR transitions" is burying the lede [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bury_the_lede]

I'd suggest something like:

"Proposal: Adopt a "living" model of continuous publications + snapshots

  *   A Working Group can update the CR essentially at will after the initial patent exclusion period
  *   Periodically, the WG issues an updated CR that is also a Patent Review Draft, and triggers a call for wide review."

 Given that you do talk about "Everteal", I strongly suggest you not muddy the waters with the "Alternative Track Proposal" slides.  As Dave Singer wrote, "this slide deck does not present simple Living Standards well or as a reasonable direction and choice. Instead it presents Improved Rec. Track as the primary effort and Evergreen as some sort of half-thought-out dead alternative."

I really think "Everteal" or whatever it's going to be called publicly could be a viable middle ground between the current process and a full Living Standards approach.  It's important to make a clear proposal for what that middle ground looks like.  In essence, CR is sortof a Living Standard once there are strong patent commitments at that point; groups value a static Recommendation can move forward, those that don't can keep iterating in CR.  Except for not using the term "Recommendation" at all, it's fairly close to what I was arguing for in issues 267, 271, 272, so feel free to close those issues if you adopt Everteal.

 I'm not speaking for the various "motivating examples" groups that have requested a Living Standard option, but I suspect some of them will find this a reasonable compromise *if* the presentation makes it clearer that your's proposing essentially a "simple Living Standards approach" with minimal changes to the W3C process.

________________________________
From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 8:37 PM
To: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org <public-w3process@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Continuous Development Process TPAC Slides



On Sep 6, 2019, at 4:10, Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com<mailto: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