Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)

On 3/13/2019 6:19 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> I note that this is, in fact, a quite complex bit of Process, and 
> wonder (as Mike has introduced) if we would be better served with a 
> process more akin to the Living Standard process we used in the 
> WHATWG; putting FOs into the document itself, although I understand 
> the rationale, seems like an attack vector for those who disagree.

I'm interested in learning more about "a process more akin to the LS 
process".  I don't know much about the WHATWG process.  Can you suggest 
some process-text which would characterize what you mean?


>
> I'd again suggest that the Chair should be more responsible for 
> maintaining consensus.  (And yes, I have an action item to propose 
> some text.  Was this moving to a repo somewhere, or should I just do 
> this in email?)
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:51 PM Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org 
> <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>     Thanks, David.  I generally agree with your direction. Many
>     comments on the minutiae.  (And shouldn't we have this discussion
>     on github?)
>
>     On 3/13/2019 2:38 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>     Hi
>>
>>     here’s my suggestion. Replace this
>>
>>      • must ensure Director review of all pending formal objections before 24 months have elapsed.
>>     ISSUE-FO: what happens if the Group refuses to accept the Director's resolution? Some ideas:
>>       • The Working Group ceases its work
>>       • The Working Group is no longer allowed to publish an ERS
>>       • The document header indicates that the Director disagrees with some parts of the document
>>
>>     with
>>
>>     If a Formal Objection is raised against an Evergreen Standard:
>
>     We need a time interval that guarantees that a FO will be taken up
>     and resolved within some bounded amount of time. The current text
>     says 24 months, which may be too long. What do people think?
>
>>     * Until it is resolved, all copies (including the working group’s working draft, and the document linked as the current ES)
>     We don't have WDs for Evergreen.  So it suffices to say that the
>     ER MUST document the FO in the header.
>>       MUST document the existence of the unresolved FO in the document header, and SHOULD document it also in the body of the text near the subject material;
>     Not clear to me why this SHOULD isn't a MUST.
>>     * After resolution, the current ES must either reflect the decision (the Director’s decision, or the agreement reached with the consensus of the WG and objector under which they withdraw their FO), or cease to be published; if the working draft or other documents of the WG do not reflect the decision, the FO marking MUST be retained.
>
>     Instead of having all of the notes, it might be cleaner to have:
>
>     Resolution:
>
>       * If the FO is rejected, the FO documentation is removed from
>         the header and the document
>       * If the FO is accepted, the document MUST reflect the
>         Director's decision if it is to continue as an ER.  If the
>         Working Group does not agree, then options include:
>           o Removing the ER designation and publishing as a Note
>           o Reverting to an earlier version of the ER which does not
>             have the objection
>           o Returning to a Preliminary Draft stage until a consensus
>             can be found for the objection
>       * If the Director, objector, and WG develop a different
>         consensus approach, then that approach is put into the
>         document and the FO documentation is removed
>
>>     Note: if the FO is rejected, the markings are removed. If the FO is upheld, and the document can be easily adjusted (e.g. removal of an ‘atomic' feature), this should be straightforward. In complex cases, the ES may need to revert to a state to which the FO does not apply, and if there is no such state, return to provisional status with no ES publication.
>>
>>     Note: resolution can include reaching an agreement with the objector and the objector withdrawing their FO in favor of this resolution.
>>
>>     Note: the Director’s decision can, of course, be appealed.
>>
>>     Note: there are too many Notes here.
>>
>>
>>
>>     David Singer
>>     Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>
>>