Address necessary mitigations for sustained objections

[frivoal]

Relates to #279

---

Preview | Diff

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Address necessary mitigations for sustained objection, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Merge PR

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Subtopic: Address necessary mitigations for sustained objection
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//pull/645
<plh> florian: main scenario: AC review with a decision which will cause something to happen
<plh> ... since formal objections can be made to decisions
<plh> ... we might be facing where we want to substain a FO against something that already happened
<plh> ... since we can't go back in time, we're now describing what happens to undo a decision
<plh> ... like publishing a Working Draft
<plh> ... the Council can make a WG to republish the Working Draft without the problamtic wording
<plh> s/problamtic/problematic/
<plh> .... the Council should give recommendation to undo things
<plh> fantasai: important part is to enact the team to take the steps in a timely fashion
<jeff> q+
<plh> ack jeff
<plh> jeff: a formal objection is not considered fully addressed until the complete process was applied
<plh> fantasai: I think we do reference that term
<plh> fantasai: the team is responsible for the follow-up
<plh> ... and we can check during transitions
<plh> ... publication can be blocked if it did not happened
<plh> florian: the intent was that indeed but in the transition request, we speak about unresolved formal objection
<plh> ... we should have use the term "fully addressed objection"
<plh> .... I consider a friendly amendment to the pull request
<plh> q+
<fantasai> jeff: ...
<fantasai> plh: Team does't decide, it acts
<fantasai> plh: if need to publish a WD, the Team responsible for doing it
<florian> q+
<fantasai> jeff: Seems the Council isn't directing, it suggests how consequences might be mitigated
<fantasai> ... so someone else might have a different idea
<fantasai> ... the problem here is that there's a cascade of imprecision
<fantasai> scribe+
<fantasai> ... It's just unclear and imprecise what we're trying to get done
<dsinger> q+ to address the formal responsibility
<plh> floriaack plh
<fantasai> florian: That's useful feedback, I know what I meant but see how it's not clear in the text
<plh> ack florian
<plh> ack plh
<fantasai> florian: My idea is that the COuncil will not direct Team to do a specific thing
<fantasai> ... if we sustain an objection that needs mitigation, 3 parts
<fantasai> ... Council, which might ahve a good idea can state an idea
<fantasai> ... Team is responsible to make sure something is done
<fantasai> ... Up to WG to fix the text, but up to the Team to make sure they do
<jeff> q+
<fantasai> ... one of the blocking points is that if there was a sustained FO about something in the document, and WG hasn't done anything, the Team who should ahve already put pressure on WG to do something about it, the Team can deny the publication
<fantasai> ... precisely how to address it, Council doesn't mandate a specific action
<tzviya> q+ to comment on role of Council
<fantasai> ... but acknowledges that there's a problem that needs fixing, and need to fix it
<plh> ack dsinger
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to address the formal responsibility
<fantasai> dsinger: I think I'm with Florian, the formal responsibility to implement is on those whose decision was overturned
<fantasai> ... so if chair made decision to do X, and this was sustaiend, chair is formally responsible
<fantasai> ... Council should only recommend, e.g. remove this technology from the draft
<fantasai> ... WG might say, that's not as simple as deleting Section 5 or whatever
<fantasai> ... and would need to work on other consequences
<fantasai> ... So Council recommendation should be light touch
<fantasai> ... Team is responsible for making sure that mitigations do in fact happen
<plh> ack jeff
<fantasai> ... but formal responsibility is on the ppl whose decision was overturned
<fantasai> jeff: Thanks Florian for clarifying the intent, and I think intent is good
<fantasai> ... pieces wrt imprecisions arise when amidst all shoulds and mights, there are disagreements
<fantasai> ... if Council says mitigate with XYZ, but WG takes a different approach
<fantasai> ... Council then no longer exists, Team has to decide whether that's adequate or not
<fantasai> ... so potentially Team is in a conflict with the WG
<fantasai> ... and consequence is that FO isn't fully addressed
<fantasai> ... So not objecting to the concept, different ways could have done
<florian> q+ to answer jeff's council
<fantasai> ... e.g. say Council may suggest, and just leave it at that
<fantasai> ... I'm not objecting to this approach either but don't know what happens if there's a disagreement
<plh> ack tzviya
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to comment on role of Council
<fantasai> tzviya: Mostly what dsinger said, I think we can just tweak a sentence here and we'll be fine
<fantasai> ... Council should suggest consequences mitigation
<fantasai> ... Jeff was saying that could lead to confusion
<fantasai> ... Councils don't always suggest mitigations
<fantasai> ... which doesn't mean Councils can't make that suggestion
<fantasai> ... [quotes text]
<fantasai> ... Maybe we soften the wording here
<plh> ack florian
<Zakim> florian, you wanted to answer jeff's council
<fantasai> florian: Should we pull the PR and improve later, or merge the rest and consider this one separately?
<fantasai> jeff: I would not like to issue sustained disagreement with anything :)
<plh> ack fantasai
<plh> fantasai: the entire reason for this pull request is to define mitigations and makes someone responsible for it
<plh> ... and judge them to be adequate
<plh> ... the Council can suggest
<fantasai> ... can switch SHOULD suggest to MAY suggest, but need to make someone responsible for ensuring following up
<fantasai> plh: [some scenario]
<fantasai> florian: People can push back on the Team if their judgement is inappropriate
<fantasai> florian: My inclination is to merge this, and I've taken some notes on editorial improvements
<fantasai> ... but if group wants to hold can do that as well
<fantasai> plh: Any reservations about merging this PR?
<cwilso> +1
<fantasai> <fantasai> +1
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR