- From: Yosuke Funahashi <yosuke@funahashi.cc>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 02:10:02 +0900
- To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, public-w3process@w3.org, Olle Olsson <olleo@sics.se>
On 6/13/14, 1:38 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: > 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. This sounds better to me. >> /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? Either is fine by me. Yosuke > 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 >>> >> >> > > -- Yosuke Funahashi co-Chair, W3C Web and TV IG Chair, W3C Web and Broadcasting BG Researcher, Keio Research Institute at SFC Special Adviser, Tomo-Digi Corporation
Received on Friday, 13 June 2014 17:10:37 UTC