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

Re: CG decision making

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:29:57 -0400
Message-ID: <539A6225.9010909@w3.org>
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>

On 6/12/2014 10:17 AM, 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:

I would like to understand the scope of these rules.

It certainly makes sense to create rules for items that are solely in 
the CG, and I'll comment on the proposal below with that in mind.

This CG has also found itself as the "working home" for other groups - 
such as when the AB decided to do its Chapter 7 revision work in this 
CG.  I think it was positive that the CG was hospitable to an outside 
group.  But the outside group had some of its own rules, and might not 
have been comfortable conforming to the "usual" rules for the CG.

> + 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.

We currently have 42 participants in the CG and I don't know how many 
are active, or even read the CG email.  In a WG, we generally assume 
that non-voters go with the consensus - because there is a high price to 
pay if you  are in a WG and are ignoring what is going on (e.g. patent 
commitments).  Here, people may be on the list, but basically ignoring 
the proceedings.

If we have a poll and let's say 15 people say I agree, 2 disagree, 4 
abstain, and 21 don't vote, I would be comfortable with a declaration 
"there is a consensus of those who voted".

> 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 Friday, 13 June 2014 02:30:18 UTC

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