Retitle STATUS Sections to Avoid Double Definitions

[fantasai]

The current Chapter 6 of the Process is a bit hard to follow, partly because it seems to define each status in two places: under 6.1.2 where it actually defines what each status means, and as direct subheadings of Chapter 6, e.g. 6.4 Candidate Recommendation which mostly just explains how to get from WD to CR.

Proposal is to retitle the sections about how to get from A to B as "How to get from A to B" or somesuch, leaving the actual definitions of A and B in 6.1.2. (There's a few bits of definition mixed in with the process instructions, but we should just pull them out into 6.1.2.) This leaves us with a clean and complete definition of each phase in one place, and lets the sections that are largely about transition processes be purely about transition processes (and be titled clearly as such).

[fantasai]

Basically, if the REC track were a flow chart, we define the boxes in 6.1.2, and we define the arrows as a series of sections starting with 6.3. We don't mix bits of box definitions in with the arrow definitions or vice versa. And we title the arrow sections as arrows to/from particular boxes, not as the name of their "from" boxes.

[dwsinger]

Agreed. Most of the sections of 6.x after 6.2 start with a verb ("modifying" "obsoleting") and one has the magic word "publishing". I suggest we add "Publishing" in the titles of 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, replace "W3C" with "Publishing" in 6.6

6.3 Working Draft
6.4 Candidate Recommendation
6.5 Proposed Recommendation
6.6 W3C Recommendation
6.7 Modifying a W3C Recommendation
6.8 Publishing a Working Group or Interest Group Note
6.9 Declaring a W3C Recommendation Rescinded, Obsolete or Superseded

[frivoal]

Done for the everblue/teal branch with 5849d59...98d009b