Re: Request for CCG Chair Intervention in CCG Process

Manu,
You are asking some great questions.  I am going to answer inline so that
things don't get missed.

On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 21:06 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> On 8/19/21 12:43 PM, Heather Vescent wrote:
> > 2) The work item escalation processes is first to raise objections to the
> > work item spec editors (in this case: Manu Sporny, Markus Sabadello, Mike
> > Varley, Orie Steele, Mahmoud Alkhraishi). If this does not result in a
> > resolution or there is a principled objection, the escalation can be
> > brought to the CCG Chairs.
>
> Clarifying question #1:
>
> If there is consensus among the Editors, are the Editors empowered to
> record a
> decision where there is dissent?
>
> https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#managing-dissent

I would strongly recommend that the decision is noted and that dissent is
recorded as well.  From the document:
"The Chair may record a decision where there is dissent (i.e., there is at
least one Formal Objection) so that the group can make progress (for
example, to produce a deliverable in a timely manner). Dissenters cannot
stop a group’s work simply by saying that they cannot live with a decision.
When the Chair believes that the Group has duly considered the legitimate
concerns of dissenters as far as is possible and reasonable, the group
should move on."



>
> Clearly, any decision recorded with dissent will almost certainly be
> escalated
> to the CCG Chairs for a final decision.
>
Yes, that is quite probably the outcome, but as noted, this approach allows
for forward progress even when there are some issues still being worked out.



> Clarifying question #2:
>
> If the person organizing the call isn't an Editor, do they have any
> ability to
> determine consensus, manage dissent, or record a decision where there is
> dissent?



> In other words, are Editors the only people empowered to run calls now and
> record RESOLUTIONs in a work item group?
>
Key word in that statement is "now".  Going  forward I would recommend that
only editors for a work item run calls, record decisions, etc.  This is one
of the reasons that work items should have more than one editor, and one of
the implicit reasons that more than one party is required to create a work
item.


> If the answer is "yes", then what happens to all of the past resolutions
> recorded by non-Editors?
>
We are not going to go revisit every prior decision made.  Past resolutions
were recorded in good faith by documentation of consensus, sometimes by
Editors, perhaps sometimes not by Editors.  If we find some case where
consensus was not recorded as a part of a decision, it is always possible
for the Editors of a work item to revisit a topic, and confirm consensus.


> If the answer is "no", then is an Organizer chosen by the work item group
> empowered to run calls and record RESOLUTIONs in a work item group?
>
> Clarifying question #3:
>
> Are people allowed to bypass the discussion process in a Work Item Group
> and
> go directly to the Chairs for a decision. Adrian and Orie's recent requests
> seem to be doing this (setting a dangerous precedent -- an appeal to
> authority
> that bypasses the consensus process in the work item group).
>
I  too am concerned with bypassing process.  Hence my earlier reply to
defer the other resolutions back to the Editors.

I believe Orie may ultimately have been asking for clarification around the
role of Editors, and if Editors could record a decision that has some
dissent.   As I noted above in this response, that is the cases.  He will
have to comment if I got at his underlying concerns or not.


>
>