Re: [CSS2] Proposed process for maintaining CSS2

> On Feb 1, 2017, at 5:18 PM, Liam R. E. Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2017-02-01 at 20:07 +0000, Alan Stearns wrote:
>> We’ve had several conversations about CSS2 maintenance recently. I’ve
>> added a summary of the current state of the proposal to the wiki:
>> 
>> https://wiki.csswg.org/spec/rec-maintenance

>> 
>> Please use this thread to discuss any changes or clarifications we
>> may need to make.
> 
> Did you mean "this email thread" or "this wiki thread"?
> 
> Well, either way, I added to the Wiki a note about the more usual
> approach of publishing a proposed edited recommendation (PER), which is
> just a candidate rec entitled PER, and which can be republished as a
> PER if there are substantive changes.

I meant the thread here, but capturing the discussion on the wiki is good, too. For those following along here, I added this response:

This is the method we want to use in the proposal below for those changes we know are ready for a quick CR. When we're not sure which changes will survive review and/or be adopted and testable, the problem is that the REC gets stuck in a republished CR cycle. I don't think it's good to take a REC back to CR for changes that haven't yet been vetted.

Thanks,

Alan