Human evaluation is the foundation upon which the evaluation of both summarization systems and automatic metrics rests. However, existing human evaluation protocols and benchmarks for summarization either exhibit low inter-annotator agreement or lack the scale needed to draw statistically significant conclusions, and an in-depth analysis of human evaluation is lacking. In this work, we address the shortcomings of existing summarization evaluation along the following axes: 1) We propose a modified summarization salience protocol, Atomic Content Units (ACUs), which relies on fine-grained semantic units and allows for high inter-annotator agreement. 2) We curate the Robust Summarization Evaluation (RoSE) benchmark, a large human evaluation dataset consisting of over 22k summary-level annotations over state-of-the-art systems on three datasets. 3) We compare our ACU protocol with three other human evaluation protocols, underscoring potential confounding factors in evaluation setups. 4) We evaluate existing automatic metrics using the collected human annotations across evaluation protocols and demonstrate how our benchmark leads to more statistically stable and significant results. Furthermore, our findings have important implications for evaluating large language models (LLMs), as we show that LLMs adjusted by human feedback (e.g., GPT-3.5) may overfit unconstrained human evaluation, which is affected by the annotators' prior, input-agnostic preferences, calling for more robust, targeted evaluation methods.