- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 18:05:48 +0900
- To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, "Siegman, Tzviya" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>
> On Mar 19, 2019, at 0:49, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote: > >> Asking the Group to request a publication means that someone has to approve the request, which we're trying to avoid. > > Why are you trying to avoid this? +1 If the Editor can publish something without the consent of the group, then the correct name for the document is "Editor's Draft", not "W3C (Evergreen) Recommendation". If the editor needs the consent of the group, then we can use our regular consensus approaches to declare consensus. The Process already says enough about that, and further refinements are for charters and chairs. If some group wants to be chaired and chartered to delegate to the Editor the evaluation of consensus, with the chairs only serving as an appeal / conflict-resolution path, they can already do that. In practice, some groups (e.g. the CSSWG) already operate like that for early stage drafts. However, most groups at most stages see value in having else than the editor fill the role of facilitating and declaring consensus, and do so using a variety of work modes. This is fine, and there's no need to restrict what work modes are valid. —Florian
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2019 09:06:19 UTC