Appeals Are Not Failures - Spherical Cow Consulting

Skip to content

Appeals Are Not Failures

Heather Flanagan<br>May 26, 2026May 22, 2026<br>Podcast, Tips and Tricks

Appeals Are Not Failures

"I have written before about how different standards organizations are structured. I have also written about what it is like to be a working group chair or a contributor."

A lot of that writing focuses on the ordinary work of standards development: building proposals, discussing tradeoffs, improving drafts, finding rough agreement, and moving work forward.

That is the happy path. Or, more accurately, that is the path we like to imagine when we talk about consensus-based standards development.

But consensus does not always happen cleanly. Sometimes the disagreement is not just a passing concern, a bikeshed, or a “please fix this before publication” comment. Sometimes a participant believes the group is about to make a decision they cannot accept. Sometimes they are willing to say so formally, loudly, and on the record. And standards’ processes offer them a way to do that.

In W3C, this can become a Formal Objection. In the IETF, this can become an appeal. Other standards organizations have similar ways to escalate disputes when the normal working group process has not resolved the issue. For simplicity, I’ll use appeal as the generic term in this post, while using Formal Objection when I’m talking specifically about the W3C process.

Here is the part that is easy to forget when you are in the middle of it: An objection or appeal is not automatically a failure of the process, nor is it automatically an attack on the people involved.

That does not mean it is fun. People are pretty passionate when it comes to developing standards, and being told they are wrong doesn’t make anyone happy.

Still, it is an important part of how consensus-based organizations protect themselves from pretending consensus exists when it does not.

A Digital Identity Digest

Appeals Are Not Failures

Play Episode

Pause Episode

1x

00:00

00:14:28

Amazon

Apple Podcasts

CastBox

Listen Notes

Overcast

Pandora

Player.fm

PocketCasts

Podbean

RSS

Spotify

TuneIn

YouTube

iHeartRadio

RSS Feed

Share

Link

Embed

Appeals Are Not Failures<br>/*! This file is auto-generated */<br>!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&"undefined"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i<br>title="Embed Code"<br>class="input-embed input-embed-4738" readonly/>

You can Subscribe and Listen to the Podcast on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to Podcasts.

And be sure to leave me a Rating and Review!

Consensus is not unanimity

Standards development depends on consensus, but consensus is not the same thing as everyone being delighted.

If you have spent any time in standards work, you know this already. A room full of smart people with different priorities, business models, legal constraints, deployment realities, and architectural instincts will not always land in the same place.

The work of a group is not to eliminate disagreement. The work is to understand the disagreement well enough to know whether the group can still move forward.

W3C’s process recognizes this explicitly. A group may need to make a decision even where there is dissent, provided the legitimate concerns of dissenters have been duly considered as far as possible and reasonable. The process also notes that dissenters can escalate a sustained objection by registering a Formal Objection. (W3C)

A person can disagree and still live with the decision. They may think the group chose the second-best option. They may believe the wording could be better. They may wish the architecture had gone another way. Again, that is normal standards work.

A sustained objection is different. It means someone believes the decision is serious enough that it needs formal review.

That is not something to dismiss casually. It is also not something that should give any one participant a veto over the group.

And yes, that balance is exactly as easy as it sounds. Which is to say: not very.

Formal processes exist because working groups can get too close to the problem

Most working group conflicts should be resolved inside the working group.

That is where the technical expertise is. That is where the history of the discussion lives. That is where the people most likely to understand the tradeoffs are already engaged.

But sometimes the working group cannot resolve the conflict on its own. Maybe the disagreement is procedural. Maybe one side believes its concern was not fairly considered. Maybe the issue touches broader architectural, policy, legal, or organizational questions. Maybe the group...