- 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>
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. Philippe
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2019 16:27:41 UTC