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

Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:08:21 -0400
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Cc: "Siegman, Tzviya" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5b09077-4ea4-30b3-a3c3-1946e48e1201@w3.org>

On 3/15/2019 12:46 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 15, 2019, at 4:19, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org 
>> <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Aside from FO, consensus might also be different between REC track 
>> and Evergreen.  REC track has formal steps of advancement and 
>> generally WGs have formal CfC's that a document is ready for 
>> advancement.  So a document won't get endorsement by W3C without a 
>> formal CfC.  On the Evergreen track, there is continuous W3C 
>> endorsement of an ER, but I don't envisage daily CFC's in an 
>> Evergreen WG.
>>
> I don't see why an Evergreen track would necessarily need less or more 
> CFC's than the REC track. The main thing about evergreen is about 
> simplifying publication. In the existing REC track, working group 
> operating under the current process and under the guidance of their 
> chair can and do put out Working Drafts at a fast pace, for now they 
> cannot do that with CRs or RECs, but for WDs there's no problem. 
> Different groups have different modalities about how they do that, and 
> strike a different balance in terms of the autonomy of the Editor, but 
> I see no reason to believe this would be any different under 
> evergreen. Email/github plus weekly calls is a perfectly fine way to 
> determine what should go into the ER if that's what one group wants to 
> do. So is asynchronous CfC if that's what they want to do.
>
> The process as it is is flexible enough to let Groups and their chairs 
> determine what is consensual and should go into the draft in a 
> productive way.

I agree with your process-level observations.  WDs can be published at a 
fast pace and ERs can be published at a fast pace.

W3C does not confer "status" to WDs; they are not "Recommended" for 
usage.  In this proposal W3C would confer status to ERs. Ordinarily W3C 
does not confer status without a formal CfC of a WG.  I'm proposing that 
for ERs we do not require a formal CfC, relying instead on procedural 
consensus.


>
> —Florian
Received on Friday, 15 March 2019 13:08:24 UTC

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