Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)

I’m with Chris here.  We tell the editors it’s their job to keep the WD alive and up to date, reflecting the consensus of the WG. If they occasionally mis-step (and they will) a member can complain and the chair and editor can sort it out. We don’t need endless “the editor requests permission to push the current editor’s draft at X as the approved working draft of the working group” for every update. It’s noise.

> On Mar 19, 2019, at 10:33 , Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:
> 
> I think you're conflating "consent" and "consensus" in these sentences, and I think that's the key here.
> 
> The Editor should be able to publish an update to the ES without obtaining explicit consent.
> The Editor should not publish updates that do not represent consensus.  (Obviously, they may accidentally violate this; however, most modern editors carefully operate in this fashion (using PR review, etc.)
> The Chair should, in my opinion, operate as an arbiter of that consensus when further necessary; they should not need to explicitly obtain consent for every publication of an ES, or we're pretty much right back at Rec-track.
> 
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 2:05 AM Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Mar 19, 2019, at 0:49, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> >> Asking the Group to request a publication means that someone has to approve the request, which we're trying to avoid. 
> > 
> > Why are you trying to avoid this?
> 
> +1
> 
> If the Editor can publish something without the consent of the group, then the correct name for the document is "Editor's Draft", not "W3C (Evergreen) Recommendation". If the editor needs the consent of the group, then we can use our regular consensus approaches to declare consensus. The Process already says enough about that, and further refinements are for charters and chairs.
> 
> If some group wants to be chaired and chartered to delegate to the Editor the evaluation of consensus, with the chairs only serving as an appeal / conflict-resolution path, they can already do that. In practice, some groups (e.g. the CSSWG) already operate like that for early stage drafts. However, most groups at most stages see value in having else than the editor fill the role of facilitating and declaring consensus, and do so using a variety of work modes. This is fine, and there's no need to restrict what work modes are valid.
> 
> —Florian

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2019 17:39:14 UTC