Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)

On 3/14/2019 4:12 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> I'd like to propose text that says something like
>
>     Similar to in the REC track, the Chair has a responsibility to
>     ensure the Group operates under consensus.  In the ES track, it
>     will likely be less likely to issue calls for consensus or assess
>     consensus as a result of a poll of participants; however, theChair
>     has an important oversight role to ensure that the group's
>     discussions proceed according to the procedural approach chartered
>     for the group, are in accordance with CEPC, and has the
>     responsibility to be an impartial facilitator to decision-making
>     when necessary.  Finally, of course, the Chair is the arbiter to
>     whom participants appeal when they disagree with the way that the
>     editors are documenting the evolving consensus of the group. The
>     chair can facilitate discussion between the participant and
>     editor, issue informative calls for consensus, or engage in other
>     discussions to see whether consensus can be reached or whether the
>     editor can adjust their position.  Ultimately, the Chair has the
>     authority to overrule the Editor and remove them if necessary.
>
This all sounds good to me.  And this sounds like the normal, 99%+ way 
of operating.

I also think we need a FO process.  There are times that the editor, WG 
participants, and chair all have similar perspectives. In the 
multistakeholder web there needs to be the possibility for appeal beyond 
the groupthink.