W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG

From: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 16:13:45 -0800
Cc: Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A37B60EA-E1A9-490E-8282-8EC2C8B33162@w3.org>
To: ifette@google.com
On Mar 7, 2012, at 2:21 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:

> I see the discussion of the process, I also see concerns. I don't see any resolution recorded or any vote.
> 
> I will also note that the charter of this group specifically says 
> 
> "As explained in the Process Document (section 3.3), this group will seek to make decisions when there is consensus. When the Chair puts a question and observes dissent, after due consideration of different opinions, the Chair should record a decision (possibly after a formal vote) and any objections, and move on.

Right. As noted in both the Charter and in the Process Document, chairs may need to record decisions when there is dissent in order for the group to move on, a formal vote is one step that may be involved. Here, Aleecia and Matthias are just documenting how they plan to record decisions (text proposals and counter-proposals, calls for objections, Working Group decision, re-opening on new information).

> This charter is written in accordance with Section 3.4, Votes of the W3C Process Document and includes no voting procedures beyond what the Process Document requires."
> 
> Section 3.4 of the W3C process document is quite specific about voting requirements, and our charter specifically states no procedure beyond what the W3C process document requires are adopted by the group.

If the chairs plan to decide consensus based on a formal vote, then we would use Section 3.4 as that process (rather than requiring a specific supermajority, say, or setting any other conditions).

> This seems like a significant change to the charter of the group which should wait for the rechartering discussion. 

I think this is just an explanation of how the chairs plan to determine Working Group decisions (as described in the Process Document, proposals that create the weakest objections) rather than a charter change that needs wider Advisory Committee review. That the chairs saw a lot of support (along with some concerns, certainly) for this procedure at our Brussels meeting suggested to me that their explanation is acceptable.

Thanks,
Nick
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 00:13:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:26 UTC