- From: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 11:05:06 -0400
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
- Cc: W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>
Here is my iteration on this, attempting to simplify David's proposal: [[ * must document unresolved formal objections in the document header and relevant parts of the spec. * must ensure Director review of all pending formal objections before 24 months have elapsed. * must reflect resolved formal objections in the spec, in particular adjusting the document if the objection was subtained. EdNote: An alternative idea for FOs is to emphasize the role of the Chair in case of FO, ie the Chair should be more responsible for maintaining consensus. ]] 2 implications are: * one cannot publish if it doesn't reflect the Director's decision on FOs; * FO marking may be removed once the FO is resolved; * it does require that the relevant parts do note the FOs and not the document header (this is a change from David's proposal); I didn't touch the 24 months bits for now, understanding it is still unclear on how to change it. Regarding Chris' idea, while we all agree that the Chair is responsible for maintaining consensus, I believe we're trying to address the case where the Chair isn't able to, especially following an horizontal review. In other words, who is the final arbiter in those cases? Ideally, we would hope that the TAG could help but they are reluctant to add more on their plates. Philippe
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2019 15:05:13 UTC