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

Sorry to be chiming in a bit late on this.  I was a bit surprised that the
group was making these changes in Brussels without a formal vote. However,
given that I had arrived a bit late on day 2, I had figured that the
agreement being cited by Mattias had been made while I wasn't in the room.
If this is not the case, and if this is the type of change that typically
is made only during re-chartering - it would be a good idea to revisit.


Cheers,

Alan Chapell
Chapell & Associates
917 318 8440






On 3/7/12 7:13 PM, "Nicholas Doty" <npdoty@w3.org> 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).
>
>> 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.
>
>Thanks,
>Nick
>

Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 21:37:28 UTC