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

Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 15:19:03 -0400
To: "Siegman, Tzviya" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Message-ID: <68b901df-4897-4b4a-ecb7-ac21e2416c34@w3.org>
Tzviya,

Of course WGs proceed with consensus whether on the REC track or WHATWG 
or on a proposed Evergreen track.  FO is not to deal with the normal 
case.  FO is to deal with the extraordinary case that an individual is 
quite sure that the consensus is wrong and wants to appeal to a higher 
authority.  I would like to maintain that in the Evergreen track and the 
question is to figure out where in Evergreen the Director should get 
involved.

  * For the REC track, a document cannot get to REC without the Director
    processing FOs first.  So it is clear.
  * For Evergreen, since ER is a continuous status and the Director is
    not continuously available - we were trying to figure out the right
    time/place to insert the Director.
  * Chris is pointing out that in WHATWG, appeals are made to the SG and
    they may override

Aside from FO, consensus might also be different between REC track and 
Evergreen.  REC track has formal steps of advancement and generally WGs 
have formal CfC's that a document is ready for advancement.  So a 
document won't get endorsement by W3C without a formal CfC.  On the 
Evergreen track, there is continuous W3C endorsement of an ER, but I 
don't envisage daily CFC's in an Evergreen WG.

HTH

Jeff

On 3/14/2019 2:56 PM, Siegman, Tzviya wrote:
>
> I am a little confused by this discussion. We seem to be going in a 
> direction that takes us far away from W3C Process and intent. Chris 
> and I were tasked with coming up with language about consensus, but I 
> am truly puzzled about what is so different about the ES process and 
> the REC track process when it comes to both consensus and FO.
>
> My impression is that the way that most REC track WGs work when they 
> are in the writing phase is not dissimilar from ES. Editors have 
> discretion to make changes to documents, but that writing should 
> reflect the intent and consensus of the WG. If there are concerns 
> about changes to documents, even merged pull requests, they are raised 
> to the group and discussed. Pull Requests can be retracted. That is 
> why we have version control.
>
> The process outlined by Chris from the WHATWG seems to ignore the 
> concept of an active and functional WG with a chair. I don’t think we 
> need to add the Director overriding an FO. Why make this a Director 
> responsibility? WGs resolve issues like this on a regular basis today.
>
> Can’t we simply state: Evergreen Standards are a part of the W3C 
> Process and must follow the rules of Consensus [1], including 
> resolving objections.
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#Consensus 
> <https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#Consensus>.
>
> *Tzviya Siegman*
>
> Information Standards Lead
>
> Wiley
>
> 201-748-6884
>
> tsiegman@wiley.com <mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>
>
> *From:*Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 14, 2019 2:46 PM
> *To:* Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
> *Cc:* David Singer <singer@apple.com>; W3C Process CG 
> <public-w3process@w3.org>; Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)
>
> Thanks, Chris.  This helps a lot.
>
> So modeling a FO objection policy after this (which is consistent with 
> the current FO policy), I suppose we only need to say that the 
> Director can override an Editor's decision. Correct?
>
> Jeff
>
> On 3/14/2019 2:11 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
>
>     In short, the WHATWG Workstream Policy
>     (https://whatwg.org/workstream-policy) says "Editors are
>     responsible for the technical content of their Workstreams", and
>     the "Steering Group appoints and may remove the Editor for each
>     Workstream".
>
>     The core of responsibilities is in
>     https://whatwg.org/workstream-policy#relationships-with-other-groups:
>
>      1. Editors must respond to substantive issues raised by
>         Workstream Participants in their Workstreams. Editors have
>         discretion to resolve issues based on available information.
>      2. If a Workstream Participant is not satisfied with an issue
>         resolution, they may request that the Editor revisit the
>         issue. If not satisfied with an Editor's final response,
>         Workstream Participants may appeal to the Steering Group.
>      3. Editors may solicit input from Workstream Participants, and
>         may consider and respond to comments, suggestions, and
>         objections from Contributors and the public.
>
>     The conflict resolution policy is just below it, in
>     https://whatwg.org/workstream-policy#decision-making:
>
>      1. Editors may commit changes to their Living Standards without
>         further review, provided they are adhering to the requirements
>         above.
>      2. The Steering Group may override an Editor's decision, or
>         remove an Editor.
>
>     So in short: Editors are responsible for responding to all
>     issues.  If a participant is unhappy with the Editor's (repeated)
>     response to an issue, they should appeal to the Steering Group,
>     which may override or remove the Editor.  (This would, of course,
>     be somewhat catastrophic, so in practice, working with consensus
>     approval is highly encouraged, and is the norm.)
>
>     I would point out that the Working Mode of the WHATWG also has a
>     high bar for what goes IN to a Living Standard, as laid out in
>     https://whatwg.org/working-mode#changes:
>
>         Each normative change made to the standard needs to meet the
>     following criteria:
>
>      1. It must have support from implementers.
>      2. It should have corresponding test changes, either in the form
>         of new tests or modifications to existing tests.
>      3. Implementations bugs must be filed for each user agent that
>         fails tests. (This is each user agent that doesn’t match the
>         proposed changes. If the test changes are not adequate to
>         reveal that, but it’s known through other means, the tests
>         should be improved first.)
>      4. It should have been reviewed by one or more members of the
>         community.
>      5. Optional or implementation-defined behavior must be very well
>         motivated.
>
>     Another thing of note - Editors MAY (but are not required to) tag
>     text as "Object Pending" or "Under Discussion", as stated in
>     https://whatwg.org/workstream-policy#optional-tags.
>
>     On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 4:01 PM Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org
>     <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>         On 3/13/2019 6:19 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
>
>             I note that this is, in fact, a quite complex bit of
>             Process, and wonder (as Mike has introduced) if we would
>             be better served with a process more akin to the Living
>             Standard process we used in the WHATWG; putting FOs into
>             the document itself, although I understand the rationale,
>             seems like an attack vector for those who disagree.
>
>         I'm interested in learning more about "a process more akin to
>         the LS process".  I don't know much about the WHATWG process. 
>         Can you suggest some process-text which would characterize
>         what you mean?
>
>             I'd again suggest that the Chair should be more
>             responsible for maintaining consensus.  (And yes, I have
>             an action item to propose some text.  Was this moving to a
>             repo somewhere, or should I just do this in email?)
>
>             On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:51 PM Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org
>             <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>                 Thanks, David.  I generally agree with your
>                 direction.  Many comments on the minutiae. (And
>                 shouldn't we have this discussion on github?)
>
>                 On 3/13/2019 2:38 PM, David Singer wrote:
>
>                     Hi
>
>                     here’s my suggestion. Replace this
>
>                       • must ensure Director review of all pending formal objections before 24 months have elapsed.
>
>                     ISSUE-FO: what happens if the Group refuses to accept the Director's resolution? Some ideas:
>
>                               • The Working Group ceases its work
>
>                               • The Working Group is no longer allowed to publish an ERS
>
>                               • The document header indicates that the Director disagrees with some parts of the document
>
>                     with
>
>                     If a Formal Objection is raised against an Evergreen Standard:
>
>                 We need a time interval that guarantees that a FO will
>                 be taken up and resolved within some bounded amount of
>                 time.  The current text says 24 months, which may be
>                 too long.  What do people think?
>
>                     * Until it is resolved, all copies (including the working group’s working draft, and the document linked as the current ES)
>
>                 We don't have WDs for Evergreen.  So it suffices to
>                 say that the ER MUST document the FO in the header.
>
>                       MUST document the existence of the unresolved FO in the document header, and SHOULD document it also in the body of the text near the subject material;
>
>                 Not clear to me why this SHOULD isn't a MUST.
>
>                     * After resolution, the current ES must either reflect the decision (the Director’s decision, or the agreement reached with the consensus of the WG and objector under which they withdraw their FO), or cease to be published; if the working draft or other documents of the WG do not reflect the decision, the FO marking MUST be retained.
>
>                 Instead of having all of the notes, it might be
>                 cleaner to have:
>
>                 Resolution:
>
>                   * If the FO is rejected, the FO documentation is
>                     removed from the header and the document
>                   * If the FO is accepted, the document MUST reflect
>                     the Director's decision if it is to continue as an
>                     ER.  If the Working Group does not agree, then
>                     options include:
>
>                       o Removing the ER designation and publishing as
>                         a Note
>                       o Reverting to an earlier version of the ER
>                         which does not have the objection
>                       o Returning to a Preliminary Draft stage until a
>                         consensus can be found for the objection
>
>                   * If the Director, objector, and WG develop a
>                     different consensus approach, then that approach
>                     is put into the document and the FO documentation
>                     is removed
>
>                     Note: if the FO is rejected, the markings are removed. If the FO is upheld, and the document can be easily adjusted (e.g. removal of an ‘atomic' feature), this should be straightforward. In complex cases, the ES may need to revert to a state to which the FO does not apply, and if there is no such state, return to provisional status with no ES publication.
>
>                     Note: resolution can include reaching an agreement with the objector and the objector withdrawing their FO in favor of this resolution.
>
>                     Note: the Director’s decision can, of course, be appealed.
>
>                     Note: there are too many Notes here.
>
>                     David Singer
>
>                     Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2019 19:19:06 UTC

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