Re: F2F meeting of the Editign Taskforce

> On 25 May 2015, at 23:03, Johannes Wilm <johannes@fiduswriter.org> wrote:
> 
> Ok, interesting. I found the description of formal voting procedures here: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#Votes

The Editing Task Force charter[1] says "The decision policy is the same as that which applies in the WebApps WG.".

The WebApps charter[2] says:

 "Any resolution taken in a face-to-face meeting or teleconference is to be
  considered provisional until 10 working days after the publication of the
  resolution in draft minutes sent to the working groups mailing list. If no
  objections are raised on the mailing list within that time, the resolution
  will be considered to have consensus as a resolution of the Working Group."

As far as I can tell (and I support this), this means that in the Task Force's F2F meetings:

* if there is clear consensus (as assessed however convenient, with or without votes or straw polling) among the present, make a resolution, which is provisional until 10 working days after the publication of the resolution minutes sent to the working groups mailing list.

* if there is no clear consensus among the present, push back the discussion to the mailing list, possibly with a call-for-consensus, using the process described by the WebApps Working group[3].

[1] https://w3c.github.io/editing-explainer/tf-charter.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2014/06/webapps-charter.html#decisions
[3] https://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WorkMode#Consensus_and_Call_for_Consensus

> I don't think any of us really want to do a lot of votes, but the work hitherto also showed that several major decisions simply won't be resolved by consensus, because there are several different opinions, and everyone is really sure about their own view and won't budge. In the meantime, the existing contenteditable is celebrating something like its 10th anniversary without properly functioning and without being spec'ed.

Voting is not used to silence dissidents or to pick one of several options when people cannot agree. We sometimes take straw polls to help determine if there is general agreement when it is not obvious if there is. But, regardless of however much agreeing would be nice, if there are two (or more) strong blocks of people who won't budge, we don't really have grounds for making a resolution.

If there is a clear majority opinion, and the minority is willing to live with the proposed resolution even if it's not their favorite, it is possible to resolve on things, and straw polls can be useful to determine if we're in such a situation. Similarly, in any situation where there is no clear general preference, we can often reach consensus by elimination of options that some members consider unacceptable, and go with what's left, even if it was't a favorite initially. Falling in either of these two cases is actually quite common, but that's different situations where people cannot agree.

Moving forward with some (even if its few, or even one) members actually objecting is generally to be avoided, although if that's the best way forward as judged by chairs, there is an official process to do that anyway, and deal with the conflict:
http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#managing-dissent

However, this is not something to be used lightly, and trying to would generally fail for two reasons:
 * the Director is likely to rule in favor of members raising a Formal Objection
   if there was no general agreement behind the resolution they object to
 * Nothing forces implementors to follow specifications, so specifications that
   go against their will are unlikely to be respected.

> if also that leads to no consensus among those present, we will need to take a vote

As highlighted above, that's not how it works. W3C decides by consensus. Generally speaking, If there's no consensus, there's no decision.

Given that W3C does not really have authority over it's members, it cannot really be otherwise.

 - Florian

Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2015 10:10:57 UTC