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 19:43:37 -0400
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>
Message-ID: <85339e60-7937-6ec4-f2fa-427b75519471@w3.org>
I agree as well.  That was one reason that we put the FO processing out 
at 24 months.  To ensure that it is not a DoS attack vector.  Still, 
like the SG in WHATWG, it is a backstop when necessary.

On 3/14/2019 7:01 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> FWIW, Mike and I are in agreement here.  I think the FO process is a 
> DoS attack vector if it can slow down the group (or forcibly keep FO 
> warnings in the ES), when that drive for consensus should have been 
> handled earlier in the process. I'm (a little more than Mike) okay 
> with keeping it in the process, but if it is used more than 0.000001% 
> of the time, this is a failure.
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 3:43 PM Michael Champion 
> <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com 
> <mailto:Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>> wrote:
>     >  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 <mailto:jeff@w3.org>" <jeff@w3.org
>     <mailto:jeff@w3.org>>
>     *Date: *Thursday, March 14, 2019 at 1:43 PM
>     *To: *Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com <mailto:cwilso@google.com>>,
>     Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com
>     <mailto:Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>>
>     *Cc: *"Siegman, Tzviya" <tsiegman@wiley.com
>     <mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>>, David Singer <singer@apple.com
>     <mailto:singer@apple.com>>, W3C Process CG
>     <public-w3process@w3.org <mailto:public-w3process@w3.org>>,
>     Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org <mailto: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.
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2019 23:43:40 UTC

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