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

RE: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)

From: Siegman, Tzviya <tsiegman@wiley.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 17:14:41 +0000
To: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BL0PR02MB4820C3C96646B5A3A225DA33D5440@BL0PR02MB4820.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Thanks, Chris. I realize the WHAT WG doesn’t have those. I think you and I are on the same page for W3C.

Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Lead

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 12:48 PM
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Subject: 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.


* 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<mailto: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


Received on Friday, 15 March 2019 17:15:07 UTC

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