- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:38:15 -0400
- To: public-w3process@w3.org, "Olle Olsson" <olleo@sics.se>
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:26:17 -0400, Olle Olsson <olleo@sics.se> wrote: > Maybe I am dyslectic, but the meaning of this point seems strange to me. > Some "grouping parenthesis" missing? >> + discussion of the proposal should not be in the same thread as saying >> "I >> agree", or "I disagree", or "I abstain" - to make it easy to determine >> what is an actual "vote". > > Do we *not* respond in the same thread? Or never mix discussions with "I > [dis]agree" in the same message? What mailing discipline enforces the > "easy to determine" effect you desire? The idea is that a single thread contain votes - as replies to the CfC email. If people wanted to debate the merits of a question, they should do so in a separate thread. An alternative is that we create a WBS survey. This requires me to copy/paste the proposal to create a survey, although it is fairly simple. Then anyone in the CG can vote on it. There are also more options - for example it is possible to rank things in the WBS tool. And it allows for comments alongside a vote - but I'd rather keep comments in the mailing list. This may be a better idea. > /olle Art also suggested we move the content of the wiki to the main W3C wiki, and use that - e.g. for recording decisions. I don't mind either way. Any preferences? cheers Chaals > On 2014-06-12 16:17, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: >> Hi, >> >> As chair of this community group, in principle I get to decide what are >> group decisions. I'd like us to work on fairly democratic principles, >> so I >> suggest the following strawman: >> >> + anyone who wants a decision declared by the CG can make a call for >> consensus. >> + it should be proposed in an email, with "CfC" or "call for consensus" >> in >> the subject line. >> + there should be a clear statement of the resolution that will be >> adopted, assuming it achieves consensus. I.e. there should be a literal >> statement. >> + the time allowed for response should be at least two weeks. >> + discussion of the proposal should not be in the same thread as saying >> "I >> agree", or "I disagree", or "I abstain" - to make it easy to determine >> what is an actual "vote". >> + at the end of the time available for response, I will declare a >> consensus, or a large majority, if one is apparent. >> >> There are some questions I have. The most obvious one is that I think we >> should record all decisions in a common place. Wiki works for me as a >> suggestion, but does anyone else have one? We could also use the >> tracker, >> or some other mechanism if anyone thinks we really should. >> >> Comments? thoughts? >> >> cheers >> >> Chaals >> > > -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2014 16:38:52 UTC