Reduce redundant text about how to substantively revise a REC

[frivoal]

This attempts to address #358, by replacing redundant text with a reference to the part it duplicated.

An alternative (which I like less) can be seen at main...frivoal:e2ec693f0da9bd681a2412b01d7350a5be606c47

That merges the two sections sections instead of having one refer to the other. This doesn't significantly shorten the document (other than by removing one section title), and makes the new merged section longer (and IMO more confusing) as these two sections aren't redundant except for the part already addressed in the first proposal. The other ways by which they differ (to make class 3 changes, you may got back to CR, to make class 4, to FPWD) predate P2020, and used to be the only ways to make class 3 / 4 changes.

Both variants are equivalent from a normative standpoint.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Revising a REC, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Merge in refactoring of substantive changes to REC

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Topic: Revising a REC
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//pull/427
<fantasai> florian: Jeff was unhappy about some of the Process text
<fantasai> florian: the PR reduces the duplication of text
<dsinger_> ack jef
<fantasai> florian: Unsure whether it is enough to address Jeff's concern and therefore close the issue
<fantasai> jeff: I certainly think it addresses the issue
<fantasai> jeff: Actually don't remember raising this issue, just as an example of streamlining Process document overall
<fantasai> jeff: Consider whether to make effort overall, or do piecemeal
<fantasai> florian: I think we make it a focus by raising specific issues.
<fantasai> dsinger_: Need to bring forward each proposed simplification individually, can't see how else
<jeff> q+
<fantasai> florian: The sections for revising REC to introduce features vs make other substantive change share a lot of duplicated text
<fantasai> florian: so the PR factors that out
<fantasai> florian: There are still two sections, because slight differences
<fantasai> florian: but the text is simplified by this change
<fantasai> jeff: Issue 358 said Process we have is complicated, let's think about simplifying
<fantasai> jeff: This PR doesn't simplify the process, but improves wording
<fantasai> jeff: I haven't fully grokked this, but trust Florian on editorial improvements to Process
<fantasai> jeff: but as he said, doesn't address larger issue, so would leave issue open
<fantasai> dsinger_: Hitting ambiguity
<fantasai> dsinger_: Simplifying "procedures that we follow" or simplifying "text of the document"
<fantasai> dsinger_: This addresses latter vs former
<fantasai> florian: I think we want to do both, but this PR is about the latter
<fantasai> jeff: For P2020, I learned it's a major effort to simplify the actual process
<fantasai> jeff: are we going to do that or not?
<florian> q+
<fantasai> jeff: if not, hard to simplify the document very much just by editorial changes
<fantasai> dsinger_: Wendy filed "Process document is too long"
<fantasai> dsinger_: I took that as the document, not the procedures
<fantasai> dsinger_: We can make that a focus of this year also
<dsinger_> q?
<dsinger_> ack flo
<fantasai> florian: I think editorially-speaking, PR is fine.
<fantasai> florian: If someone has comment on PR, say now, or else let's merge
<fantasai> dsinger_: Any objections?
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge in refactoring of substantive changes to REC
<fantasai> florian: On the substantive side of 358, I think what we have now is that process to update REC in place
<fantasai> florian: is the same for substantive changes vs new features
<fantasai> florian: with exception that new features are not allowed on all RECs
<fantasai> florian: If new features are not allowed in a particular REC, then have to go back to CR or FPWD
<fantasai> florian: That's the difference between these sections
<fantasai> florian: Unless we decide to allow new features to all RECs, we can't make these two sections identical
<fantasai> florian: If want other things to change, please give specific suggestions. I can't come up wtih anything
<fantasai> s/change/change for this one issue/
<jeff> q+