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

Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)

From: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 17:46:56 +0000
To: "Siegman, Tzviya" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <57651136-9277-4AEF-9DD0-F0355E010566@microsoft.com>
Great, I really hope we’re on the same page here.  WHATWG’s model of Editors who are mini-Directors with profound expertise in the specs they edit, a strong sense of personal ownership that motivates them to keep them up to date, and authority to resolve disagreements among contributors works pretty well, but that’s hard to apply to the broader scope of W3C.  I think W3C can continue to learn from that model,  e.g., I think the maintenance problem at W3C is largely created by the fact that no single human being is ultimately responsible for quality/timeliness, so there tends to be a delay when there’s grunt work to be done.  Likewise I think W3C could learn from the WHATWG’s extremely limited ability for contributors to file “formal objections” to the Steering Group if they think their expert opinion is being buried in groupthink.  (It exists on paper, but has never been used, and the SG cannot make a technical judgment but only a procedural decision that the Editor hasn’t respected the various WHATWG policies.)   But until/unless we figure out how to balance the “chair” role of building high-level consensus and the “editor” role of getting the details right, it makes sense to keep them separate.

That said, there’s little day-to-day difference in how effective WGs, CGs, and Workstreams actually operate  -- they have engagement by people with deep expertise, respect for each others’ opinions and proposals, and a bias for action to move the web forward.  As fantasai notes, the formal process / working mode serves more as guiding principles than as algorithmic rules, and I see little benefit for making them different for those developing ERs and Recs.

From: "Siegman, Tzviya" <tsiegman@wiley.com>
Date: Friday, March 15, 2019 at 10:15 AM
To: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)
Resent-From: <public-w3process@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Friday, March 15, 2019 at 10:15 AM

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<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2019%2FProcess-20190301%2F%23Consensus&data=02%7C01%7Cmichael.champion%40microsoft.com%7Ccb13c3b7cfab4c3cea9108d6a969cbae%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636882669184588793&sdata=urtEp32ICFdVK7dnB%2FISOebc9wMFoT1%2FoPevO0W%2BNmY%3D&reserved=0>.

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 17:47:25 UTC

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