[cdr-devel] Re: [cdr-announce] CDR 2 updated

[Edi Weitz]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 14:07:51 +0100, Pascal Costanza <pc at p-cos.net> wrote:

> The issue that I currently see (and haven't anticipated) is that CDR
> 0 is fixed by now and cannot be changed anymore (without violating
> the CDR principles). The text of the CDR process is included in CDR
> 0, together with what we encourage the authors and submitters to do,
> etc.
>
> On the other hand, CDR itself can start to deviate from CDR 0, and
> when a sufficient amount of changes have been made to the CDR
> process, we can issue a new CDR for describing CDR. [1] The recent
> suggestions by Nikodemus and you aren't strong deviations that are
> in conflict with CDR's original goals, so I don't see a fundamental
> problem here.
>
> What do the other CDR editors say?

I think that even if the deviations aren't big, we should nevertheless
track them somehow, otherwise it doesn't make sense to have CDR 0 at
all.  I'd propose that (assuming we want to change something) we
either release a new CDR which replaces CDR 0 (which is to be
withdrawn) or that we decouple CDR itself from CDR documents.