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

Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 17:51:42 +0900
Message-Id: <DEFBF9E8-6566-45D6-BAB3-19D327E9BE24@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>
To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>


> On Mar 15, 2019, at 22:08, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> Ordinarily W3C does not confer status without a formal CfC of a WG.

That's not true. What we need is a WG resolution. Whether these are obtained through a CfC, a synchronous decision, or something else is up to the work-mode defined in the charter and the Chair(s).

> I'm proposing that for ERs we do not require a formal CfC, relying instead on procedural consensus.

Maybe I misunderstand what is being meant by "procedural consensus", I don't see why it needs to be any different for ERs. There should be consensus, and that should be established using whichever way the WG normally establishes consensus. I think you're trying to bundle getting more efficient at publishing (which is what I believe ER is about), with getting more efficient at reaching/recognizing consensus, which seems like a completely orthogonal topic, and one which I don't believe is a source of concern in general.

There may be some people who dislike the way some WGs declare consensus, but that's a chairing / chartering issue, not a Process issue.

—Florian
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2019 08:52:09 UTC

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