Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)

That's fine.  Hmm.  At any time, after duly notifying the Editor and Chair,
a participant may issue a Formal Objection that the Director must review?

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 1:43 PM Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:

>
> 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.
>