Draft Registry and Candidate Registry Draft

[plehegar]

[[

• The equivalent of Working Draft is called Draft Registry.

• The equivalent of Candidate Recommendation is called Candidate Registry, with Candidate Recommendation Snapshot and Candidate Recommendation Draft corresponding to Candidate Registry Snapshot and Candidate Registry Draft.
  ]]
  https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#reg-pub

Can we call them "Registry Draft", "Candidate Registry Draft", "Candidate Registry Snapshot" ?

[dwsinger]

I personally think that name differentiation is only needed and desirable for the thing that gets W3C/AC approval, the document with the registry definitions. or am I missing something mechanical? Can we avoid a profusional proliferation of names?

[fantasai]

Every status has its own names, and if we're copying the REC track process (which we are), then every status in the REC track needs a corresponding name in the Registry Track. (We decided we didn't need a status corresponding to Proposed REC, so we dropped that one, but otherwise the two tracks are aligned.)

But anyway, afaict the only difference between what's in the proposal and what you're proposing is renaming "Draft Registry" to "Registry Draft"? We have "Working Draft" and "Draft Note", so I guess it's an interesting question of which to align with.

[fantasai]

Fwiw, I believe you'd at one point proposed renaming "Working Draft" to "Draft Recommendation" which we all agreed would make sense if only "Working Draft" didn't have so much history. :)

[frivoal]

I'm mildly against the proposed rename, but this is fairly subjective, so I'm not going to stand in the way if the majority leans the other way. In any case, we should decide before we roll out registries, so agenda+

[fantasai]

If I understand correctly, the issue is asking to rename “Draft Registry” to “Registry Draft” and no other change. That gives us the following three options:

• Working Draft / Draft Note / Draft Registry
• Working Draft / Draft Note / Registry Draft
• Working Draft / Note Draft / Registry Draft

(I also think it might be nice to make an editorial change to put the status equivalencies into a table rather than sentences.)

[dwsinger]

As long as "Draft" is in the title, I have no strong opinion.

[dwsinger]

closing no change

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Agenda+ Issues, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Rename Other Charter to Reference Charter
• RESOLVED: Accept PR 528 and close issue 312
• RESOLVED: Close 347
• RESOLVED: Close 402 no change
• RESOLVED: Close #501 no change
• RESOLVED: Close #508 no change (keep name Statements)
• RESOLVED: Close 516 no change

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Topic: Agenda+ Issues
<fantasai> dsinger: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?q=is%3Aopen+label%3AAgenda%2B+type%3Aissue
<fantasai> florian: Some are closed just now
<fantasai> dsinger: Here we can either decide to act, or defer another cycle, or mark final cleanup
<fantasai> Subtopic: "Reference Draft" and "Other Charter"
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/114
<fantasai> dsinger: Proposal is to update the labels here
<fantasai> dsinger: Other Charter -> Previous Charter
<fantasai> fantasai: +1 to Previosu Charter
<fantasai> florian: +1
<wseltzer> +1
<jeff_> q+
<fantasai> fantasai: Actually, is the Other Charter the Adopted Working Draft charter or the Reference Draft Charter?
<fantasai> ?: Reference Draft's charter
<plh> s/?/plh/
<fantasai> fantasai: Then use term "Reference Charter" because there could be a charter in between
<fantasai> jeff_: This was asked for by PSIG, should we run it by PSIG?
<fantasai> dsinger: I doubt there's a problem, wseltzer could you just inform PSIG and come back if that happens to be a problem?
<fantasai> ACTION wseltzer: Alert PSIG about name change
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Rename Other Charter to Reference Charter
<jeff_> q-
<fantasai> Subtopic: Suspension/Removal for Cause
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/312
<fantasai> PR in https://github.com//pull/528
<fantasai> florian: We had two parallel threads discussing this section
<fantasai> florian: For multiple reasons we wanted to rework
<fantasai> florian: one thread landed a long time ago
<fantasai> florian: so I got confused a bit about what happened
<fantasai> florian: This PR incorporates some of the suggestions in this thread
<fantasai> dsinger: We had text in DF that improves this generally, and this is pulling back that general improvement?
<dsinger> q?
<fantasai> florian: We reached consensus awhile back, and but didn't make edits
<fantasai> dsinger: Any thoughts on 528?
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Accept PR 528 and close issue 312
<fantasai> subtopic: Streamlining Horizontal Reviews
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/347
<fantasai> florian: We closed PR because we're pursuing in Guide
<fantasai> florian: Idk if closing or deferring, but not doing it this cycle either way
<fantasai> florian: but maybe closing makes sense, since we closed the PR?
<fantasai> dsinger: Huge discussion
<fantasai> florian: We never came up with something everyone was happy with, and eventually gave up
<fantasai> [ This is more or less handled in https://www.w3.org/Guide/documentreview/ ]
<fantasai> dsinger: I'd like to close
<fantasai> dsinger: in favor of documenting practice in /Guide
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Close 347
<fantasai> Subtopic: Rename "Candidate Recommendation"
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/402
<fantasai> dsinger: This is a term of art. I think disruption by renaming is worse than any clarity we can gain here
<fantasai> florian: agreed
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Close 402 no change
<fantasai> Subtopic: Abandoning a Note
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/501
<fantasai> [scribe loses track of conversation]
<fantasai> [but basically ppl are agreeing with each other based on comments Florian posted]
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Close #501 no change
<fantasai> github: none
<plh> q+
<fantasai> subtopic: Naming W3C Statements
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/508
<fantasai> florian: When we opened the issue, we weren't entirely sure about name, so opened issue to track separately
<fantasai> florian: but I think we're good, close no change
<fantasai> plh: I've started talking about this, and nobody has complained about the name. Seems it's a good name.
<dsinger> ack plh
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Close #508 no change (keep name Statements)
<fantasai> subtopic: Draft/Candidate Registries
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/516
<fantasai> plh: We have Draft/Snapshot for recommendation
<fantasai> plh: equivalents with Registry isn't as straightforward
<fantasai> plh: could decide to make no change, just want to make sure we're aware of those things
<fantasai> florian: Draft appears in "Working Draft" , "Draft Note", and "Candidate XXX Draft"
<fantasai> dsinger: Should we leave this to editors and plh?
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Close 516 no change
<dsinger> Last AC review https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?q=is%3Aopen+label%3AAC-review+type%3Aissue+-label%3AAgenda%2B