W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > June 2014

Re: CG decision making

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:38:15 -0400
To: public-w3process@w3.org, "Olle Olsson" <olleo@sics.se>
Message-ID: <op.xhcoh1dwy3oazb@31-35-23.wireless.csail.mit.edu>
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:26:17 -0400, Olle Olsson <olleo@sics.se> wrote:

> Maybe I am dyslectic, but the meaning of this point seems strange to me.  
> Some "grouping parenthesis" missing?
>> + discussion of the proposal should not be in the same thread as saying  
>> "I
>> agree", or "I disagree", or "I abstain" - to make it easy to determine
>> what is an actual "vote".
>
> Do we *not* respond in the same thread? Or never mix discussions with "I  
> [dis]agree" in the same message? What mailing discipline enforces the  
> "easy to determine" effect you desire?

The idea is that a single thread contain votes - as replies to the CfC  
email. If people wanted to debate the merits of a question, they should do  
so in a separate thread.

An alternative is that we create a WBS survey. This requires me to  
copy/paste the proposal to create a survey, although it is fairly simple.  
Then anyone in the CG can vote on it. There are also more options - for  
example it is possible to rank things in the WBS tool. And it allows for  
comments alongside a vote - but I'd rather keep comments in the mailing  
list.

This may be a better idea.

> /olle

Art also suggested we move the content of the wiki to the main W3C wiki,  
and use that - e.g. for recording decisions. I don't mind either way. Any  
preferences?

cheers

Chaals

> On 2014-06-12 16:17, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As chair of this community group, in principle I get to decide what are
>> group decisions. I'd like us to work on fairly democratic principles,  
>> so I
>> suggest the following strawman:
>>
>> + anyone who wants a decision declared by the CG can make a call for
>> consensus.
>> + it should be proposed in an email, with "CfC" or "call for consensus"  
>> in
>> the subject line.
>> + there should be a clear statement of the resolution that will be
>> adopted, assuming it achieves consensus. I.e. there should be a literal
>> statement.
>> + the time allowed for response should be at least two weeks.
>> + discussion of the proposal should not be in the same thread as saying  
>> "I
>> agree", or "I disagree", or "I abstain" - to make it easy to determine
>> what is an actual "vote".
>> + at the end of the time available for response, I will declare a
>> consensus, or a large majority, if one is apparent.
>>
>> There are some questions I have. The most obvious one is that I think we
>> should record all decisions in a common place. Wiki works for me as a
>> suggestion, but does anyone else have one? We could also use the  
>> tracker,
>> or some other mechanism if anyone thinks we really should.
>>
>> Comments? thoughts?
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Chaals
>>
>
>


-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2014 16:38:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:11 UTC