W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > June 2014

Re: CG decision making

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:48:42 -0400
To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.xhemfgyxy3oazb@chaals.local>
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:29:57 -0400, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:

> On 6/12/2014 10:17 AM, 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:
> I would like to understand the scope of these rules.
> It certainly makes sense to create rules for items that are solely in  
> the CG, and I'll comment on the proposal below with that in mind.
> This CG has also found itself as the "working home" for other groups -  
> such as when the AB decided to do its Chapter 7 revision work in this  
> CG.  I think it was positive that the CG was hospitable to an outside  
> group.  But the outside group had some of its own rules, and might not  
> have been comfortable conforming to the "usual" rules for the CG.

The AB formally decides about the process document. I appreciate their  
effort to make the work public and think this is an appropriate place to  
do so from both sides.

The AB can choose to follow the normal CG process and then automatically  
ratify its decisions, ratify those decisions on a batch or case-by-case  
basis, or they may choose to use their own process for making decisions.  
That's a question for the AB to decide.

>> + 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.
> We currently have 42 participants in the CG and I don't know how many  
> are active, or even read the CG email.  In a WG, we generally assume  
> that non-voters go with the consensus - because there is a high price to  
> pay if you  are in a WG and are ignoring what is going on (e.g. patent  
> commitments).  Here, people may be on the list, but basically ignoring  
> the proceedings.

My experience suggests that is effectively the same as in WGs. But I don't  
think the difference is material, either.

> If we have a poll and let's say 15 people say I agree, 2 disagree, 4  
> abstain, and 21 don't vote, I would be comfortable with a declaration  
> "there is a consensus of those who voted".

I am not sure that I would consider that even a consensus of those who  
voted. I certainly want the actual numbers and rationale for objections or  
abstentions to be available to anyone so they can verify what a  
"declaration of consensus" really means.

>> 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 Friday, 13 June 2014 17:49:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:19 UTC