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

Re: Evergreen Formal Objection handling (ESFO)

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:12:44 +0000
Cc: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, 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>
Message-id: <CE67F243-1AA1-4042-B400-BD7B84175DAC@apple.com>
To: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>

> On Mar 19, 2019, at 18:43 , Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I suspect the best way to deal with Evergreen track failure conditions where there are controversies and objections by closely-involved experts is to move those specs move to the Rec Track, not to put a lot of consensus-checking bureaucracy into the Evergreen track.   (That's partly why I think the decision to move to the Evergreen track should be made after a spec is fairly mature and the WG can assess whether they can optimize for ease of progress or whether they need the Rec Track process to ensure that each step forward has broad consensus ... but I'm deferring pushing that argument until we have a better sense of how the Evergreen stage itself will work).

That’s also part of the “don’t fully trust it until 180 days have elapsed and hence community review as well as WG review is deemed to have occurred"

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2019 17:13:18 UTC

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