David Singer

I think it was re-written and now doesn't use the word "invalidate": > changes that reasonable implementers would not interpret as changing architectural or interoperability requirements or their implementation. and...

The AB felt that we do not have the time to give this proper consideration for P2020, and it's a naming issue, not functionality. Keep open and discuss.

Yes, the status question is important. We are getting closer to the IETF 'RFC' status; formally 'requests for comment' but actually what the internet runs on. CRs have more status...

In discussion in the Process CG we realize that the SOTD needs work, see separate issues on that. We're not confident of our ability to edit the Process in 2020...

Given that (a) you can maintain in Rec as well as in CR and (b) anyone can ask/push for a Rec transition if it's needed, I would surmise that the...

> @frivoal wrote: > > > once a spec is good enough to go to REC > > @dwsinger wrote: > > > the WG and the community are comfortable...

> @dwsinger The suggestion here is that the spec has passed all the exit criteria but the WG deliberately delays requesting transition to PR. I can buy that for a...

The SOTD doesn't ask that external organizations NOT reference; it says it's inappropriate to reference other than as a work in progress. That's true for an evolving CR, aka Living...

Ah, I missed a resolution from the [Call on 27 May 2020](https://www.w3.org/2020/05/27-w3process-minutes.html#resolution04) > RESOLUTION: we keep 402 without Process changes this year, but turn our attention to improving the SOTD

one place to look for similarity or grounding might be the appeal procedure in the Process?