Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)

Yep, I think Mike and I are championing* that point of view as well.

Also, Tzviya - sorry, I missed the comment "The process outlined by Chris
from the WHATWG seems to ignore the concept of an active and functional WG
with a chair."  Yes, it does, just because the WHATWG does not have those
things in its work mode.  I personally think they're good things, and want
to have them - hence the chair with some authority and responsibility.

-Chris

* ha HA! I knew if I hung around Mike long enough I could eventually make
that pun!  Sorry Mike.

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 8:26 PM fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
wrote:

> On 3/14/19 11:56 AM, Siegman, Tzviya wrote:
> > I am a little confused by this discussion. We seem to be going in a
> direction that takes us far away
> > from W3C Process and intent. Chris and I were tasked with coming up with
> language about consensus,
> > but I am truly puzzled about what is so different about the ES process
> and the REC track process
> > when it comes to both consensus and FO.
> >
> > My impression is that the way that most REC track WGs work when they are
> in the writing phase is not
> > dissimilar from ES. Editors have discretion to make changes to
> documents, but that writing should
> > reflect the intent and consensus of the WG. If there are concerns about
> changes to documents, even
> > merged pull requests, they are raised to the group and discussed. Pull
> Requests can be retracted.
> > That is why we have version control.
> >
> > The process outlined by Chris from the WHATWG seems to ignore the
> concept of an active and
> > functional WG with a chair. I don’t think we need to add the Director
> overriding an FO. Why make
> > this a Director responsibility? WGs resolve issues like this on a
> regular basis today.
> >
> > Can’t we simply state: Evergreen Standards are a part of the W3C Process
> and must follow the rules
> > of Consensus [1], including resolving objections.
> >
> > [1] https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#Consensus.
>
> I just want to step in here to say I support Tzviya's point that the
> process
> rules for editing an ER should not be any different from the process rules
> currently operating for the REC track. I think the document here is way too
> detailed about exactly who is responsible for what specific task in the WG.
> The Process should be an overarching framework and principles, not a
> specific
> workflow.
>
> ~fantasai
>
>
>