- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:25:58 -0700
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
On 3/14/19 11:56 AM, Siegman, Tzviya wrote: > I am a little confused by this discussion. We seem to be going in a direction that takes us far away > from W3C Process and intent. Chris and I were tasked with coming up with language about consensus, > but I am truly puzzled about what is so different about the ES process and the REC track process > when it comes to both consensus and FO. > > My impression is that the way that most REC track WGs work when they are in the writing phase is not > dissimilar from ES. Editors have discretion to make changes to documents, but that writing should > reflect the intent and consensus of the WG. If there are concerns about changes to documents, even > merged pull requests, they are raised to the group and discussed. Pull Requests can be retracted. > That is why we have version control. > > The process outlined by Chris from the WHATWG seems to ignore the concept of an active and > functional WG with a chair. I don’t think we need to add the Director overriding an FO. Why make > this a Director responsibility? WGs resolve issues like this on a regular basis today. > > Can’t we simply state: Evergreen Standards are a part of the W3C Process and must follow the rules > of Consensus [1], including resolving objections. > > [1] https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#Consensus. I just want to step in here to say I support Tzviya's point that the process rules for editing an ER should not be any different from the process rules currently operating for the REC track. I think the document here is way too detailed about exactly who is responsible for what specific task in the WG. The Process should be an overarching framework and principles, not a specific workflow. ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 15 March 2019 03:26:27 UTC