Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 9:27 AM Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

With or without the 24 months, the Director could simply decline to rule,
and the FO would stay in the ER forever, I think.  That seems odd.


> > 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?
>

No.  :)  (as an aside, as relative newcomer to the wiki proposal on this,
it would help if we tried to keep a limited set of terms.  I can't tell if
an ES and an ER are the same thing (I think so?), and there's no official
"WD", is there?)

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.
>

I would say in current REC track efforts I participate in, the WDs *are*
representative of consensus.  Editor drafts (e.g. "the github repo on an
average day") may not, although nearly always do, as solutions are sketched
out in Issues and Pull Requests, first.