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

Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)

From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 17:46:46 +0000
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
CC: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, "Siegman, Tzviya" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, "W3C Process CG" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D8B6DA0B.3F4D6%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Whether itıs noise or a valuable check-point may well depend on the people
involved.

Regardless, it is certainly possible to define a process in the WG that
establishes that the Decision Policy has been met for publishing a new
draft, and that empowers the Editor to publish when this process has been
successfully completed. For example, a group policy to merge pull requests
after a minimum of 2 weeks assuming there are no outstanding objections,
and to tie automatic publishing to merging pull requests to the master
branch.

This is fine for drafts, but not fine for anything that purports to be a
W3C ³Recommendation² though, where a stronger approval should be required
in my view. If an ES is going to be updated like this, donıt call it an
Evergreen Recommendation, call it something weaker sounding.



On 19/03/2019, 17:38, "singer@apple.com on behalf of David Singer"
<singer@apple.com> wrote:

>Iım with Chris here.  We tell the editors itıs their job to keep the WD
>alive and up to date, reflecting the consensus of the WG. If they
>occasionally mis-step (and they will) a member can complain and the chair
>and editor can sort it out. We donıt need endless ³the editor requests
>permission to push the current editorıs draft at X as the approved
>working draft of the working group² for every update. Itıs noise.
>
>> On Mar 19, 2019, at 10:33 , Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
>David Singer
>Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>



-----------------------------
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 Tuesday, 19 March 2019 17:47:16 UTC

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