Call for Consensus: publish Candidate Recommendation

[ProgramMax]

This GitHub issue is to establish consensus on publishing a Candidate Recommendation. W3C Working Group participants should reply with affirmation, dissent, or may abstain.

Should we publish a Candidate Recommendation?

Process
Consensus is a core value to the W3C. I have assigned this issue to all PNG WG participants who have their GitHub profile listed. I was unable to include Simon Thompson in the assignees list. Pinging @simontWork . Also, Said Abou-Hallawa does not have a GitHub account listed. I will try to email them.

A WG participant may register a Formal Objection if they would like Director consideration.

WG participants may respond with a simple yes/no or similar. They may also elaborate. If dissenting, elaboration is encouraged in order to identify issues and find solutions. The W3C process on managing dissent states that we will try to address concerns as much as is reasonable and should move on once that is done.

Call to action
Working group participants should reply with their stance on publishing a Candidate Recommendation.

[lrosenthol]

Yes!

[shallawa]

Yes.

[chrisn]

Yes

[simontWork]

Apologies for the delay in replying, I've been on vacation.

I've read the document once more and I would prefer it if issues #341 #342 and #343 were addressed prior to CR.

[svgeesus]

I would prefer it if issues #341 #342 and #343 were addressed prior to CR.

I agree, and prefer these be addressed which seems easily possible. Once that is done, yes to requesting advancement to CR.

[svgeesus]

(I am also on vacation)

[svgeesus]

I've read the document once more and I would prefer it if issues #341 #342 and #343 were addressed prior to CR.

Would be fixed by #345 (review)

[svgeesus]

We now have 7 open issues tagged blocking-3rd-edition-cr.

Of those: #337 has an open PR which would resolve it.

#343 has good discussion on definitions and terms which would resolve it, so a PR would be easy to create.

#346 has some early discussion, probably needs more

There is one Privacy and one Security issue, in both of those the discussion seems to have run its course, some edits have been made, and it is uclear what more needs to be done.

#308 and #194 are minor polish issues, nice to have, I really don't see them as blocking CR though.

Lastly, there is a publishing moratorium starting 8 September and approval of a request for Candidate Recommendation typically takes at least a week; so I don't see us publishing this until after TPAC. But we can at least make the request, which I am about to do, and clear up what issues we can between now and the end of TPAC.

[svgeesus]

@ProgramMax could you please declare, on this issue, whether we have consensus to request transition to Candidate Recommendation? Also your own +1 or -1 should be added.

So far we have 4 in favor, 5 once #343 is closed.

[ProgramMax]

+1 for me.
Given that all voices are either favorable or pending an issue that is making progress, I am okay saying we have consensus and transitioning to Candidate Recommendation.

[svgeesus]

Transition to CR requested 31 Aug 2023

[svgeesus]

Published 21 Sept 2023