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 16:44:13 -0400
To: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, "Siegman, Tzviya" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <e23c1e1d-1c4e-0988-0203-407c374b1439@w3.org>


On 3/14/2019 3:35 PM, Michael Champion wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I very strongly disagree and expect to (ahem) formally object to an Evergreen process that perpetuates the notion that the Director is engaged or expert enough to over-ride a overwhelming preponderance of opinion among technical experts in a WG.  That might have been true in the late 90’s when the Process evolved, it is definitely not true now.

I did say during the call yesterday that we weren't thrilled about 
putting the Director in those loops either. Even for the REC-track, the 
prospect of having the Director ruling on technical matters isn't 
compelling nowadays. The ER track was designed to avoid having the 
Director in the middle (no transition requests, etc.). I believe however 
your concern is more related about finding an alternative to the 
Director as a whole.

> If a WG can’t reach consensus on a technical matter, it should either leave that feature out of the standard until the Real World has given more guidance, or admit defeat and go back to incubation.  Maybe that’s too big a change for the Rec Track  just now, but it’s how I think about Evergreen Recommendations.

That's certainly one option we can choose imho.

Philippe
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2019 20:44:18 UTC

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