Re: Help with W3C BLM statement

Hi Tobie, Kim, and everyone else in IDCG,

The part of your mail I am quoting below isn't entirely accurate. It sounds like what I believe is many people's understanding of the Process (and the responses made early on to the comments you had made in github were indicative of that mindset), but the actual rules set by the W3C Process aren't that. How much the difference matters is an interesting question on its own, but difference there is.

Basing my answers on https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#ACReviewAfter <https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#ACReviewAfter> and https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#WGArchiveMinorityViews <https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#WGArchiveMinorityViews>.

(Note: I am not describing what I think the process should be, but what it currently is. IANAL, but I am a co-editor of the Process :)

> On Sep 2, 2020, at 6:16, Tobie Langel <tobie@unlockopen.com <mailto:tobie@unlockopen.com>> wrote:
> 
> […]
> 
> During that process, a formal objection was made[2]. There were also two change suggestions[3] (that I made) which weren't formal objections (i.e. the IDCG can choose whether to incorporate those suggestions or not).

No, the IDCG cannot chose. It can have an opinion as to whether it is a good idea to do so, but it doesn't decide. The Director does. More details below. The difference between the F.O. and your comments is that the Director *must* consider the F.O., but can ignore the non-F.O. comments; everything else is the same.

> NEXT STEPS
> The IDCG now has to review this formal objection and the change suggestions.

Actually, no. The Director has to, not IDCG. It is good form for the Director to ask the IDCG what it thinks of any change he might want to make or not make to the text, and it is expected that the IDCG would want to respond to such a question, but neither is an actual requirement.

> This process has already started on the mailing list[4].
> 
> THE IDCG has the following options:
> 
> 1. it can make substantial changes to the statement which would retrigger the 4 week review process again, and potentially allow for more objections (for example on the ground of the statement coming too late), or
> 2. it can incorporate the changes proposed by the objector, or
> 3. it can decide to submit the statement as is and request that the Director override the objection.
> 
> In all cases the IDCG can make non-substantial changes to the language without retriggering a review.

The IDCG at this point has no formal list of options. Only the Director does. Of course, if the Director asks a question to the IDCG, the IDCG has a choice about how to respond, but this response isn't bound to a set of options defined in the Process.

Ralph acting on behalf of the Director has asked the IDCG what it thought about a possible change. The IDCG can respond anything it wants to that question (including not responding). None of these answers will do anything on their own, other than informing the judgement of the Director. And he may (or not, up to him) take the deliberations of IDCG into account as much as the official answer.

As for the options that the Director has, he

> must identify any Formal Objections.


and he has a choice of:
> The proposal is approved, possibly with minor changes integrated.
> The proposal is approved, possibly with substantive changes <https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#substantive-change> integrated. In this case the Director's announcement must include rationale for the decision to advance the document despite the proposal for a substantive change.
> The proposal is returned for additional work, with a request to the initiator to formally address <https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#formal-address> certain issues.
> The proposal is rejected.
He could theoretically do something else, since the process says the following about the 4 options listed above (note the word "generally"), but I don't expect that to happen:

> This W3C decision <https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#def-w3c-decision> is generally one of the following:

Note that these rules *don't require* asking or abiding by anybody's opinion, even though skipping talking to people, especially in the presence of a formal objection, would be quite reckless.

If, by talking both to the IDCG and the objector, the Director identifies a consensual solution to the problem, I would expect him, after having verified with other people who voted in the AC ballot that they too were OK with it, to take option 2, and to publish the modified document. This *does not* require an additional 4 week AC review, regardless of whether any change that the Director chooses to apply comes from the objector, IDCG, himself, or someone else. It's still the Director's choice to decide what to do though, although it would be highly unexpected for him to do anything else than going by the consensus when there is one. But I'll point out that here too, since the process does't say, it's his call to decide "consensus of who". My understanding of the current Team policies is that it is *not* consensus of the proposers + objector, but of everybody who participated in the AC Review (which might not include all of IDCG, since it's a CG and may contain non-members, or non-AC-Reps employees of members).

If consensus cannot be found, the Director may still take any of the 4 options above, including publishing as is, publishing with the addition proposed by the objector, publishing with some other phrasing the Director would think it good, sending it back to work (which would end up requiring another 4 week AC review once ready), or shutting down the whole thing.

—Florian