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

Re: CG decision making

From: Jean-Charles (JC) Verdié <jicheu@yahoo.fr>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:52:43 -0400
Message-ID: <5399DADB.6070008@yahoo.fr>
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
CC: public-w3process@w3.org, Olle Olsson <olleo@sics.se>
Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> 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.

I prefer that idea. I would be uncomfortable with that two answers
thing, one w/ my vote and one advocating why I'm up or down voting.

JC

> 
>> /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
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2014 16:53:24 UTC

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