On 3/14/2019 7:45 PM, Christopher Allen wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:02 PM Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com > <mailto: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. When W3C was formed Tim was also the overall architect for the web and hence the decision point for technical appeals. The AB has a parallel study (which we will discuss at the AC meeting) imagining how this would work in any case when/if Tim steps down. To your point, many people feel it should go to the TAG. > > 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 23:56:12 UTC