Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)

I think you're conflating "consent" and "consensus" in these sentences, and
I think that's the key here.

The Editor should be able to publish an update to the ES without obtaining
explicit consent.
The Editor should not publish updates that do not represent consensus.
(Obviously, they may accidentally violate this; however, most modern
editors carefully operate in this fashion (using PR review, etc.)
The Chair should, in my opinion, operate as an arbiter of that consensus
when further necessary; they should not need to explicitly obtain consent
for every publication of an ES, or we're pretty much right back at
Rec-track.

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 2:05 AM Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:

>
>
> > 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