@tantek, @frivoal, and I discussed some of the ambiguities in the Process around what happens when we follow the "adopt with substantive changes" track in https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#ACReviewAfter and how to fix them. We think three changes are necessary (two to Process, one to Guide):
- Objections that block consensus of substantive changes during the consensus check, like those during the AC Review itself, get registered as Formal Objections.
- These Formal Objections get batch processed with the FOs from the AC Review.
- The consensus check on the revised document should use the same question structure as the AC Review itself, to ensure clarity on the responses; and ideally the same system (currently WBS).
Note that prior to Process 2023, consensus was defined as the lack of a Formal Objection. We revised this definition for various reasons in Process 2023, and I don't think we should revert; but the ability to block consensus without actually registering an FO leaves these cases in a weird limbo and makes it hard for a Council to properly address the W3C Decision at hand.
@tantek, @frivoal, and I discussed some of the ambiguities in the Process around what happens when we follow the "adopt with substantive changes" track in https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#ACReviewAfter and how to fix them. We think three changes are necessary (two to Process, one to Guide):
Note that prior to Process 2023, consensus was defined as the lack of a Formal Objection. We revised this definition for various reasons in Process 2023, and I don't think we should revert; but the ability to block consensus without actually registering an FO leaves these cases in a weird limbo and makes it hard for a Council to properly address the W3C Decision at hand.