Re: CfC: Call for consensus of proposed CG Charter

pá 7. 2. 2025 v 21:07 odesílatel Dmitri Zagidulin <dzagidulin@gmail.com>
napsal:

> tldr/summary:
> 1) 14 day CfC period for CG commentary from CG group members for charter
> adoption has started.
> 2) The chairs have registered an objection to the current charter proposal
> from one member, and are launching this discussion thread to help resolve
> outstanding concerns.
>
> Thank you everyone for your discussions and contributions so far with
> regards to adopting a Charter for the Social Web CG.
>
> During the community call today, we ran the following proposal:
>
> PROPOSAL: Adopt the Proposed CG Charter (at
> https://swicg.github.io/potential-charters/CGCharter-1727386911.html
>  ) as this group's charter, with the understanding that PRs and
> conversation on it can continue.
>
> The proposal to adopt the CG charter in its current form received
> overwhelming support, with 13 +1 votes, several abstain votes (vote of 0),
> and one -1 objection from CG member Angelo Gladding. (As P.L.H. pointed
> out, this vote is not part of the W3C WG process, and thus does not have
> the Formal Objection mechanism available for it, so this is a regular
> objection.)
>

Abstention is not 100% accurate.  In W3C norms, I think there following
applies:

*Vote**Meaning**Explanation*
*+1* *Strong approval* "I fully support this and believe it should move
forward."
*+0* *Mild approval* "I don't object, but I’m not strongly in favor."
*0* *Neutral / Abstain* "I have no opinion or don't want to participate in
this decision."
*-0* *Mild disapproval* "I have slight concerns, but I won’t block it."
*-1* *Strong disapproval* "I oppose this and believe it should not move
forward."


>
> Although we cannot allow this objection to hold up the momentum of the
> group (especially with the amount of members voting _for_ the adoption of
> the proposed charter), we do want to give Angelo the opportunity to express
> his concerns here on this thread.
>
> To that end, we passed the following MODIFIED resolution: PASSED: Adopt
> the Proposed CG Charter (at
> https://swicg.github.io/potential-charters/CGCharter-1727386911.html
>  ) as this group's charter, with the understanding that PRs and
> conversation on it can continue. PENDING async resolution of the objection
> from Angelo.
>
> As Evan points out in his 'About the objection to community group charter'
> mailing list thread, we would like to hear specific changes to the Chair
> Selection process that Angelo would like to see (a PR would be preferable,
> but we understand that the PR mechanism is not accessible to everyone, so
> you can request changes here on the list).
>
> Angelo, what would you like to see changed about the current charter?
>
>
>