- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:11:33 +0000
- To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Cc: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, 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>
> On Mar 19, 2019, at 17:46 , Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote: > > Whether it¹s noise or a valuable check-point may well depend on the people > involved. I’m sorry, I should have said it may be both WG-dependent, and where in the process the WG is. For example, when trying to ‘land’ a perfect CR, the WG may indeed want to review every change prior to commit. > > 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, don¹t call it an > Evergreen Recommendation, call it something weaker sounding. I’m not sure I agree… > > > > On 19/03/2019, 17:38, "singer@apple.com on behalf of David Singer" > <singer@apple.com> wrote: > >> I¹m with Chris here. We tell the editors it¹s 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 don¹t need endless ³the editor requests >> permission to push the current editor¹s draft at X as the approved >> working draft of the working group² for every update. It¹s 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. > ----------------------------- David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2019 17:12:14 UTC