Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)

I'd suggest that you merely do regular CFCs for snapshots, then, and the
snapshot is the last-known-good-consensus.  In practice, however, this will
be needless process, and everyone will continue to point to the WDs/EDs as
the source of truth.

The W3C may not confer "status" to WDs, but the reality is that the ongoing
"ED" of living standards is intended to always represent consensus.   We
have tools (like proposals and PR reviews) to ensure that we no longer need
to slam in features prior to agreement.  I'm happy for there to be a
mechanism to retroactively object, but this not ever happen.  (Similar to
FOs typically happening at the outside-the-WG level, not from a WG member
during the CFC just prior to publication.)

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 6:08 AM Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:

>
> On 3/15/2019 12:46 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mar 15, 2019, at 4:19, Jeff Jaffe <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
>
>