- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 09:55:44 -0800
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>
> On Nov 13, 2019, at 8:35 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > > Yo! > Some of you were at TPAC, where plh and I presented the proposal for updating the REC track process: > https://www.w3.org/2019/Talks/TPAC/continuous-standards/ > > We've written an explainer (and also Process document edits) which you can find here: > https://www.w3.org/wiki/Process2020 > > Since the REC track process affects editors more than anyone, I would really like to ask for comments from you all, particularly: > > 1. Do you feel you understand the proposal and its impact on your work? yes > 2. Do you like the direction it is going in? yes, preferably if there is one process for all groups (eventually). > 3. If not, what specifically are your concerns? > 4. Do you have any questions? Is there anything you want explained better? The line "The reason is, there's always errors to fix." is not actually true. Errors implies that we did something wrong at time it was made, whereas the most common reason to fix a spec is that the world around us has changed. Adapt or die unreferenced. Also, the section on Notes should include some mention of being where CRs retire if they are not sufficiently adopted for REC. ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2019 17:55:59 UTC