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

Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 20:34:46 -0400
To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, 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: <171f2bc1-81ce-1af0-0de7-e37406855a90@w3.org>
Thanks, Nigel.  I'm not really sure where we are disagreeing. Could you 
pinpoint the place in the proposed Evergreen process text that you don't 
agree with, and propose a change?


Jeff


On 3/15/2019 6:17 PM, Nigel Megitt wrote:
> Sorry for top-posting - the web based email client I'm using doesn't 
> quote messages properly on response.
>
> > 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.
>
> This seems to me to be a very strange proposal. The way that a WG 
> establishes consensus is defined by its Charter. That Charter 
> specifies a Decision Policy (or if not, a default one should apply), 
> and the Chair will come to a conclusion about consensus when the terms 
> of the Decision Policy have been met for a specific proposal. There is 
> therefore no meaningful difference between a "CfC" and "procedural 
> consensus". If it seems like a good idea to have different decision 
> policies for ER publication than any other kind of publication, that's 
> a conversation to be had when assessing a draft Charter.
>
> For a concrete example, let's say a group has a 2 week review period 
> defined in the Decision Policy for any proposal to allow for adequate 
> review time. And let's say the group has a document being published as 
> an ER. The mechanism for changes to that ER might be to review a pull 
> request. It would be reasonable to say that substantive changes being 
> made must be done by pull request and the pull request is a form of 
> CfC for adopting the change into the ER; then after the 2 week period 
> has passed, if there is consensus to merge the pull request, the ER 
> can be updated. If the group is happy with that way of working and 
> understands it, then that should be possible. The group should set a 
> high standard for accepting such pull requests, of course.
>
> Nigel
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Jeff Jaffe [jeff@w3.org]
> *Sent:* 15 March 2019 13:08
> *To:* Florian Rivoal
> *Cc:* Siegman, Tzviya; Chris Wilson; David Singer; W3C Process CG; 
> Philippe Le Hegaret
> *Subject:* Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)
>
>
> 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
>
> ----------------------------
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk <http://www.bbc.co.uk>
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain 
> personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically 
> stated.
> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in 
> reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to this.
>
> ---------------------
>
Received on Sunday, 17 March 2019 00:34:50 UTC

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