W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > March 2019

Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)

From: Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:45:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CACrqygBfqnF7mFEtLNhyOv8V6Q6JsQLRvZ5+Z_=tYrecz4Z-tw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Cc: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, "Siegman, Tzviya" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:02 PM Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> 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.

Not a proposal, more of a question:

If it is a technical issue, shouldn't the appeal be made to the TAG, not
the director? This is in effect how IETF works — it is the IAB that is the
ultimate appeal on any technical grounds.

If it is a process issue, that should't that appeal being made to the
director? That makes sense to me.

This addresses both "drive for consensus should have been handled earlier
in the process" and that a single person has to make a technical decision.

-- Christopher Allen
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2019 23:46:35 UTC

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