Re: [CSS2] Proposed process for maintaining CSS2

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:32 PM, David Singer <> wrote:
>> On May 8, 2017, at 17:55 , Geoffrey Sneddon <> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:07 PM, 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:
>>> Please use this thread to discuss any changes or clarifications we may need to make.
>> I discussed a bunch of things around the CSS2 maintenance story with
>> plh today; I'll let him correct me if I mis-summarise him!
>> I believe he views "We want a draft with changes in-line for review
>> published on TR" as a goal we don't need: while we need to have "wide
>> review", we don't need a document in TR-space for this. We're strictly
>> making this harder for ourselves than we need to. We can just get the
>> wide-review done on the editor's draft (or, even, from the Director's
>> viewpoint, on the errata document itself!).
>> As such, his suggestion is that we just take the two-ED route and do that.
>> I'll also point out the wiki page has a paragraph beginning with
>> "Another option, and I think more usual, is to issue a Proposed Edited
>> Rec", but PERs don't exist under the 2017 Process, which from this
>> thread I believe is from Liam?
> um, I think ‘edited recommendation’ exists, and it goes through a ‘proposed’ stage
> <>

We still have this name of "Edited Recommendation", but we don't have
a different process for it any more: there's no stage of Proposed
Edited Recommendation any more—they either are directly published as
an Edited Recommendation (if editorial only) or go through the normal
Candidate Recommendation and Proposed Recommendation phases (with no


Received on Thursday, 25 May 2017 10:14:19 UTC