Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)

On 3/18/2019 10:17 AM, Nigel Megitt wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> Already done at https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/79#issuecomment-473471203 para 6 (not counting quoted paragraphs).
> 
> The affected text is in §6.11 of https://www.w3.org/2019/03/Evergreen.html where the note following the requirement to document consensus of the WG seemingly goes out on a limb regarding WG process in a way that does not seem to be justified by anything else in the document.
> 
> The 1st bullet itself "must document the consensus of the Working Group," is redundant since the first bullet in https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#transition-reqs is already "must record the group's decision to request advancement." The two statements seem to mean the same thing, or if not, I'd like an explanation please!
 >
> The proposal is to remove the first bullet and the note, and, if anyone thinks it unclear, clarify that republishing an ER happens as a result of a Transition Request and therefore is preceded by a request to "advance a specification to a new maturity level other than Note". In other words, ER(n) -> ER(n+1) is an advancement to a new maturity level.

Asking the Group to request a publication means that someone has to 
approve the request, which we're trying to avoid. Transition requests 
don't exist on the ER track thus there is no "request for advancement". 
This removes the Director from getting involved in those publications.

In the proposal, I did split those general requirements to differentiate 
the general requirements between ER and REC tracks.
Consequently, all requirements in 
https://www.w3.org/2019/03/Evergreen.html#transition-reqs-rec-track 
aren't applicable to ER. It's not perfect however, since this request 
reappears in 6.11.1 ERS but doesn't say who gets the request...

Philippe

> Nigel
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Jeff Jaffe [jeff@w3.org]
> Sent: 17 March 2019 00:34
> To: Nigel Megitt; Florian Rivoal
> Cc: Siegman, Tzviya; Chris Wilson; David Singer; W3C Process CG; Philippe Le Hegaret
> Subject: Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)
> 
> 
> 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<mailto: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
> 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.
> 
> ---------------------
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------
> 
> 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 Monday, 18 March 2019 15:44:52 UTC