W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > March 2019

Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)

From: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:27:38 -0400
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <53160144-a513-4eeb-0698-adc32bb165ea@w3.org>

On 3/14/2019 11:20 AM, David Singer wrote:
> I am completely baffled why you kept the 24 months. (A) we have no such requirement today on FOs and if we introduce it it should apply uniformly but, more importantly (B) how long the Director takes to issue a decision is not under the control of the WG and thus it’s inappropriate to put a constraint here that they cannot ensure.

I'm still unsure on how to solve that one so I didn't touch the text yet.

The REC track does force the Director to rule on a FO in order to 
publish a REC. The question here is do we want to force the Director to 
rule on an FO after a certain amount of time? Imposing a time period but 
allowing the Director not to rule doesn't solve the issue imho. Removing 
the time period allows the Director to keep the FO forever in his 
someday pile, thus providing no guarantee to the objector.

> Lastly, you don’t distinguish the WG’s working draft from the W3C’s Evergreen Rec, and I think it important that we do. Most of the time they will be identical, but one can easily imagine a WG that decides to revert the ES after an FO is upheld, but keep a WD that has the problem still in it, in the new tech they want to introduce, while they work on modifying it to satisfy the decision. I don’t want a WD in that state to have no hint that there was an FO decision against it. Makes sense?

It does make sense. But if one look at the definition of the WD and 
compare it to the definition of ER, as outlined in the proposal, it 
should help answer this question. Most notably, a WD may not have 
consensus of the WG or implementation experience. Having said that, once 
the proposal for ER gets more refined, we should revisit this imho.

Received on Thursday, 14 March 2019 16:27:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:50 UTC