Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)

>  In the multistakeholder web there needs to be the possibility for appeal beyond the groupthink.

There should be an appeal to real world data, sure.  If tests fail, if the draft spec isn’t implemented,  or doesn’t much use in experimental contexts (origin trials, etc.), or has quantifiable performance problems, there should be backpressure on the groupthink. WG chairs should be expected to direct the WG to respond appropriately to such data, and to more qualitative review feedback from the TAG, or A11Y, I18N, privacy reviewers, etc.    I suppose there would be a role for the Director to intervene if the WG ignores the external feedback and proceeds with its groupthink;  Director can and should replace a Chair who allows such a thing.

As for a scenario where a lone voice of reason wants to speak truth to the groupthink and appeals to the Director for support, I suppose I could go along with such a thing if it were essentially a nuclear option that would shut down the WG if the Director agrees (on process grounds) that the WG is not in touch with external reality, and withdraws support. But I think any process option that encourages dissenters to appeal to the Director in hopes of imposing their technical viewpoint on the rest of the group is a denial of service attack vector, and should not be perpetuated in the Evergreen process.

From: "jeff@w3.org" <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2019 at 1:43 PM
To: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Siegman, Tzviya" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, 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)



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.