Initial stab at living CR/REC #151
Conversation
plehegar
added
the
enhancement
|
Note this related thread re charter language: w3c/charter-drafts#275 |
|
@plehegar meta-remark: under the 'Reviewers' section (at the top of the left pane), you have a link to "Convert to draft" this PR. It will be explicitly marked as a draft, and I guess that the merge button will not be available. |
Co-authored-by: Nigel Megitt <[email protected]>
|
I think I addressed the initial feedback (thank you @nigelmegitt ). I feel more comfortable asking for feedback from a wider audience now (team and process CG, then Chairs) |
Co-authored-by: Wendy Seltzer <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: chaals <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: chaals <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: chaals <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: chaals <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: chaals <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: chaals <[email protected]>
|
It would be useful to characterize when one "uses" living CR and when one uses REC. For example, if a spec is destined to be used by a regulatory body, or used by vendors to pour silicon to put it into a chip - you really need a REC. If you are working on spec-text that rapidly evolves on an annual basis, it may be preferable to use living CR. |
This creates a new page in the Guidebook that reviews considerations for Working Groups pondering whether to publish the latest state of their work as Candidate Recommendation (with Snapshots) or as Recommendations. Four dimensions are described: - targeted audience - wide review - stability/availability signals - revisions/maintenance. The revisions/maintenance section could perhaps be expanded and moved to a dedicated page over time. Note: This is intended to supersede #151.
|
I prepared #366 to add considerations about the final stage of documents and propose to close this pull request. I invite people involved in this discussion to review the new pull request! |
(this is work in progress)