- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 11:33:36 -0400
- To: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
- Cc: W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 3/14/2019 11:05 AM, Philippe Le Hégaret wrote: > 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. s/subtained/sustained/ You left out the situation (presumably as a simplification) that the WG does not want to adjust the document. Are we saying that the WG does not have the choice to continue to disagree and reduce their status to a PD or Note? > > 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 15:33:39 UTC