This draft is really long. I have a healthy appetite for process discussion but bounced off the page a few times to do other things before digging in. I'm feeling that this started as an explainer for the changes, but at some point became an essay describing more of the process than just the changes.
-> On the contrary, I've been told it doesn't explain enough, and need to add more text...
The "Issuing Versioned Recommendations" has a disclaimer at the end saying it isn't about the 2020 changes, so you should probably move that text out. Similarly, I don't see the need for the "Note Track", "Tooling Requirements", and "Changes Documentation" sections here - they're not directly about 2020 changes. "Managing Horizontal Reviews" is good information, but more than is necessary for an explainer. I think a sentence about needing to manage horizontal reviews for maintenance releases would be sufficient.
> It was a question asked at the AC meeting.
In general, I suggest going through the whole document and remove everything that is not change-related. A short, focused explainer will get more readers.
> If you only care about changes, stop reading after the changes section? Is there info you want in the changes section that's not there?
>> If I'm meant to stop reading at some point, perhaps you should put the questions section at the top.
>>> You're meant to stop reading a section if it's boring to you ? Different sections are boring to different people...
>>>> Sure, and I think the questions section is one of the most important, which is why I'm suggesting putting it at the top. If the questions are first then people can read through thinking of how they might answer the questions that are important to them.