Re: Documentation of the updated decision process of the DNT WG

Hi Nick,

Reply inline:

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Nicholas Doty <> wrote:

> On Mar 7, 2012, at 2:21 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
> > I see the discussion of the process, I also see concerns. I don't see
> any resolution recorded or any vote.
> >
> > I will also note that the charter of this group specifically says
> >
> > "As explained in the Process Document (section 3.3), this group will
> seek to make decisions when there is consensus. When the Chair puts a
> question and observes dissent, after due consideration of different
> opinions, the Chair should record a decision (possibly after a formal vote)
> and any objections, and move on.
> Right. As noted in both the Charter and in the Process Document, chairs
> may need to record decisions when there is dissent in order for the group
> to move on, a formal vote is one step that may be involved. Here, Aleecia
> and Matthias are just documenting how they plan to record decisions (text
> proposals and counter-proposals, calls for objections, Working Group
> decision, re-opening on new information).

According to 3.4, a vote is in order when all means of reaching consensus
have failed and a vote is necessary to proceed past deadlock. In this case,
there are requirements that MUST be followed for the vote. The charter of
this WG states that we will attempt consensus, and that if we cannot reach
it, the chairs will, after "consideration of different opinions, the Chair
should record a decision (possibly after a formal vote) and any objections,
and move on."

"If no text proposals are written for an issue, the chairs may choose to
close the issue for apparent lack of interest." does not jive well with
that. An issue implies a lack of consensus. It may be that there is no good
alternate text that solves an issue and that the best the group can do is
to drop a part of the spec as there is no text that will lead to consensus
and/or an implementable solution. The Chairs should not be empowered to
merely close an issue which indicates a lack of consent by implying that
the lack of alternate text is an "apparent lack of interest".

> > This charter is written in accordance with Section 3.4, Votes of the W3C
> Process Document and includes no voting procedures beyond what the Process
> Document requires."
> >
> > Section 3.4 of the W3C process document is quite specific about voting
> requirements, and our charter specifically states no procedure beyond what
> the W3C process document requires are adopted by the group.
> If the chairs plan to decide consensus based on a formal vote, then we
> would use Section 3.4 as that process (rather than requiring a specific
> supermajority, say, or setting any other conditions).
> > This seems like a significant change to the charter of the group which
> should wait for the rechartering discussion.
> I think this is just an explanation of how the chairs plan to determine
> Working Group decisions (as described in the Process Document, proposals
> that create the weakest objections) rather than a charter change that needs
> wider Advisory Committee review. That the chairs saw a lot of support
> (along with some concerns, certainly) for this procedure at our Brussels
> meeting suggested to me that their explanation is acceptable.
I don't see how a working group can adopt something before there's a
concrete written proposal. At best, such support should be construed as a
willingness to review such a written proposal, which is what we are now
doing and said proposal I am objecting to (still in the lower-case 'o'
sense, though I would like to discuss this before it is applied, or I will

> Thanks,
> Nick

Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 00:29:19 UTC