-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 122
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Avoid using two different meanings of "sustain" #746
Comments
A few ideas:
I think the first option is better... |
Previously, consensus was defined as "nobody in the set registers a Formal Objection", and now we have "there is no sustained objection from anybody", with a Note added. Changing the Council to "uphold" would resolve the ambiguity, but the Note is very unclear what is expected to happen in the presence of a "sustained objection" (that is not a Formal Objection). It's also unclear to me what "some formal contexts" means - the example given is AC Review, but we should be explicit about which other contexts, if any. I also note that in section 5.7.2 (part of "Advisory Committee Reviews") has:
but in an AC review "dissent must be expressed as a Formal Objection" so there isn't a dissent-but-not-FO option here. Essentially, I'm not following why the idea of "sustained objection" has been added. |
Use "uphold" to describe what the Council does when it agrees with an FO, to distinguish with "sustain" as used in the definition of dissent. See w3c#746
This is partly off topic and was discussed in #634, but here's a summary:
It means there's no consensus. But groups can still make a decision by a Vote, see https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#Votes
I don't think there are any other such contexts at the moment. The note was just trying to avoid accidentally contradict potential future evolutions of the Process. Maybe we should rephrase the note from "in some formal contexts such as AC Reviews" to "in the context of formal AC Reviews".
|
See w3c#746, as AC review is currently the only case where sustained objection must be expressed as an FO
See #746, as AC review is currently the only case where sustained objection must be expressed as an FO
The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed
The full IRC log of that discussion<fantasai> Subtopic: Rename Sustain to Uphold<fantasai> florian: Two uses of “sustain” <fantasai> ... this PR changes one to “uphold” <cwilso> +1 <fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/746 <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR 762 to rename sustain to uphold wrt Council Decisions |
Use "uphold" to describe what the Council does when it agrees with an FO, to distinguish with "sustain" as used in the definition of dissent. See #746
https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#def-Dissent, "At least one individual in the set sustains an objection." uses "sustain" to mean that an individual keeps doing something after discussion.
https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#sustain
<dfn>
s "sustain" as the thing a FO Council does when they agree with a Formal Objection.Discussion in #740 (comment) revealed that having both meanings is actively confusing people.
#738 (comment) has some possible wording to avoid using "sustain" in the definition of "dissent", although it's not the only wording that could do so, and we'll also have to check all the other uses of "sustain".
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: