Clarify FO publication timing #735

[fantasai]

---

Preview | Diff

[cwilso]

This seems like it would not allow the Team to attempt to resolve Formal Objections prior to making them public, which might lead to more press cycles than necessary; it also seems like the FO would be made public immediately upon the vote being filed ("upon registration"), disallowing changing the vote later.

[jyasskin]

@cwilso I almost made your "upon the vote being filed" comment, but then I noticed

A Formal Objection filed during an Advisory Committee Review is considered registered at the close of the review period.

at the bottom of the section.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Requirement to publish formal objections should include a timeline, and agreed to the following:

• ACTION: fantasai update the PR
• ACTION: fantasai to update PR
• ACTION: plh to make sure Tantek the PR
• ACTION: plh to propose a PR for the Guide

The full IRC log of that discussion

<plh> subtopic: Requirement to publish formal objections should include a timeline
<plh> Github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/808
<florian> q+
<plh> ack florian
<plh> Florian: Process requires FO to be made public but not when
<plh> ... we experienced delays in the past
<cwilso> q+
<plh> ... fantasai proposed "as soon as"
<plh> q+
<plh> ... downside: if the FO can be made away, it might expose it unnecessrily
<plh> ack cw
<plh> cwilso: Jeffrey is completely
<plh> ... it would be best to have some leeways for the Team to make the FO public
<plh> ... if we feel strongly about something, we still can formally object to things
<plh> .... if someone says "charter is 5 years long", I would object to this but no need to blow things out of proportion
<plh> ack plh
<fantasai> s/expose it unnecessarily to the press and cause a kerfuffle, even if it is easily resolved/
<fantasai> scribe+
<fantasai> plh: We can't necessarily make the FO public as-is, because if it was Member-confidential, we need to hide the company that made the FO
<fantasai> ... we thought it was always appropriate to do that
<cwilso> s/completely/completely correct, the "registration" definition means it waits until the end of the voting period; I retract that comment
<fantasai> ... so public except for the affiliation
<fantasai> florian: There is a specific section of the Process about how to change confidentiality levels, covers what you said
<florian> https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20231103/#confidentiality-change
<fantasai> plh: from Team perspective, I want to give some guidance
<fantasai> ... don't want to put requirement in Process, prevents Team applying judgement
<fantasai> ... so prefer to update Guidebook
<fantasai> ... our Process is complex enough, prefer to avoid adding more
<florian> q+
<plh> q?
<fantasai> ... but would welcome guidance on how to implement that part of the Process
<plh> ack florian
<fantasai> florian: I think I might be favorable to idea of guidance
<fantasai> ... in particular because this is context-dependent, and may need judgement
<fantasai> ... e.g. if some people have made public, and multiple objected, might be better to make public so all conversation can be in same space
<fantasai> ... [missed]
<plh> q+
<fantasai> ... allow Team to handle in a timely way, but some flexibility seems useful
<fantasai> plh: +1, can think of some cases that are opposite
<plh> ack plh
<fantasai> ... when it's about technical stuff, my advice to Team is make sure you raise an issue on GitHub
<fantasai> ... that will take care of making FO public
<fantasai> ... there's still a question of "where do I find all the FO", but that's a separate question
<fantasai> plh: when issue is about charter, those can often easily resolved
<fantasai> ... editorial to some extent
<fantasai> plh: then there are FOs that concern legal matters
<fantasai> ... those shouldn't be pushed to WG, because they wouldn't be able to answer
<fantasai> ... those tend to take longer than expected in terms of making them public
<fantasai> plh: Welcome guidance. Wrt checkpoints, we have 90-day limit for starting Council
<fantasai> ... so that could be one anchor, if you start Council need to make FO public
<fantasai> ... it gives us a deadline
<fantasai> ... can advice Team on how to make this sooner
<fantasai> cwilso: I think it's good to have guidance, don't Jeffrey was trying to say instantaneous, but that it should be predictable
<fantasai> ... there's a balance, I think this particular situation was unfair to Mozilla
<fantasai> ... but nobody had any intent to stick them with that problem
<fantasai> florian: Maybe we need nothing in Process, and everything in Guide
<fantasai> ... or in Process put FO deadline of Council start
<fantasai> ... or if the objector themselves asks for it to be made anonymously public
<fantasai> plh: We could say "No later than starting the Council"
<fantasai> ... and in the Guidebook elaborate on how soon
<fantasai> ... saying that in Process wouldn't address Mozilla's case, need to say more, but in Guidebook
<fantasai> florian: So we put that in GH and circle back to Jeffrey?
<fantasai> plh: I can start a PR in /Guide to make more concrete
<fantasai> cwilso: Should probably also get Tantek involved
<fantasai> ... wouldn't be as much of a problem if he didn't post his responses as public
<fantasai> ... not that he shouldn't
<fantasai> ... but if he had just left it Member-visible, he wouldn't have gotten all the flak that he did on Mozilla's behalf
<fantasai> ... idk if he finds that important or not
<fantasai> ... not sure what's a good solution here, certainly didn't want to hang him out to dry
<fantasai> florian: That's probably enough for this topic for today
<plh> ack fantasai
<fantasai> ... we have a PR for strictest version, so we at least know what that looks like
<plh> fantasai: one of the guidance: dependencies/similarities between FOs
<plh> ... "no later than starting the council" could be reflected in the PR
<fantasai> florian: sounds good
<plh> ACTION: fantasai update the PR
<fantasai> ACTION: fantasai to update PR
<plh> ACTION: plh to make sure Tantek the PR
<plh> ACTION: plh to propose a PR for the Guide