Re: Possible item for discussion for 2016 -- Charter adjustments

On 2015-05-13 12:00, David Singer wrote:
>> On May 13, 2015, at 11:53 , Jeff Jaffe <> wrote:
>> On 5/13/2015 12:54 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>>> On May 13, 2015, at 9:50 , Wendy Seltzer <> wrote:
>>>> On 05/13/2015 12:48 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>>>> At the moment, if one objects to a charter, the team works with you and others who objected, to adjust the charter to resolve your objection, which is great.
>>>>> But then the charter is simply adopted.  Those who voted for the charter as it was, who might have liked it before it was adjusted and maybe don’t like it now, are not consulted.  This could easily be a problem.
>>>> That's not my impression. At least in the case of the WebAppSec
>>>> recharter, I reached back out to everyone who had responded to the poll
>>>> to ask whether they had questions or objections to the proposed revisions.
>>> ah, that was good of you, but I don’t think it is documented anywhere, is it?
>> I agree with Wendy, and I don't think that the process is as David described.
>> If one objects to a charter, the team works with you and others who objected (as David says) as well as other interested parties. Almost always, the team will work with the Chairs.  As necessary, the Chairs might also recommend conversations with other parties and potentially with the entire Working Group.
>> For example, in the current WAI charter reviews, there have been discussions on the member-charter-review mailing list, but there have also been conversations with folks in the various working groups.  (And in the case of WAI there was also an AB discussion and an AC discussion.)
>> If the team senses that the resolution of the objection is relatively minor it is possible that a revised charter could be just "adopted" as you say.  More likely, if there is any suspicion on the team that there would be previous supporters that are turned into objectors by the revision, the Team would send the new charters back to the AC.
> OK, this sounds good, but falls into practice rather than process (which might be enough).
>> Certainly a candidate topic.  Generally, I'd like to clean up potential problems, but seeing how difficult it is to get a new Process approved I'd rather focus on real problems.  Do we have examples where this has been a real problem?
> There was one a year or two ago where we were surprised and considered raising it, but in the interests of peace and harmony we let it go.

Rather than increase the time needed for Charter approval in order to 
allow for possible changes, I think a better approach is to broaden what 
is appealable.  Than if someone thinks a modification has gone too far, 
they could appeal and if the needed 5% of the AC agree with the appeal, 
it goes to a vote that could override the Director's decision.  That 
makes it so there is extra time needed only when things go wrong.

When the Director makes a decision after a (formal) AC Review, the 
Decision should be appealable if:
1) the Director approves the proposal and either the proposal was 
modified before approval or there was at least one formal objection from 
the AC;
2) the Director rejects the proposal and a majority of the AC Reviews 
that did not abstain approved the proposal.

None of that addresses the fact that the AC is in the position of only 
being able to request things and do Reviews if W3C staff decides to 
propose something, but at least it ensures that when the AC does a 
formal AC Review it can appeal the decision on what the consensus of the 
Membership is.

>>>>> Do we have an accumulated list of possible topics for Process2016?
>> The list is here:
> That’s everything in the grab-bag.  I was wondering if we had any start on what we actually intend to take up for Process2016…
>>>>>    Mine includes:
>>>>> TAG appointment, composition, etc.
>> Issue-133 is the closest, but you might want to add a new one.
>>>>> The CG->WG transition: do we need anything in the process?
>> Issue 130:
>>>>> The text on AC Appeals is not very consistent (but they never happen, so why worry?)
>> Issues 134, 135 address part of this problem.
>>>>> This issue: charter adjustment and no (re-)vote
>> There are a few chartering related issues, but this one might be new.
> I won’t clutter up the issue tracker without conversation first, but if we feel there is an issue here, I can add it.
> I’ll comment on 133, that its scope could be broader.
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2015 23:31:53 UTC