- From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 16:36:53 -0500
- To: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, <ifette@google.com>
- CC: Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
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