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

Re: CG decision making

From: Yosuke Funahashi <yosuke@funahashi.cc>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 02:10:02 +0900
Message-ID: <539B306A.3030504@funahashi.cc>
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, public-w3process@w3.org, Olle Olsson <olleo@sics.se>
On 6/13/14, 1:38 AM, 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.

This sounds better to me.

>> /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?

Either is fine by me.

Yosuke

> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Yosuke Funahashi
co-Chair, W3C Web and TV IG
Chair, W3C Web and Broadcasting BG
Researcher, Keio Research Institute at SFC
Special Adviser, Tomo-Digi Corporation
Received on Friday, 13 June 2014 17:10:37 UTC

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