W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > October 2017

Working group voting procedures in Process 2018

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:49:14 -0700
To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Cc: W3C AC-Forum <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>, "chairs@w3.org" <chairs@w3.org>, "ab@w3.org" <ab@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20171023164914.sl2zwjadzqsmj5mb@pescadero.dbaron.org>
I'm curious about the rationale behind one of the changes within
#24, which covers voting *in working groups* (which is described in
both the new and old process as a rare procedure that should only be
used when consensus cannot be reached).

In the current process, votes in a working group MUST be taken
per-organization (or group of related members).  In the revised
process, the default voting process (which can be overridden by
charters) is that votes in a working group default to one vote per

This change seems to introduce the risk that, if a working group is
facing issues contentious enough to lead to a vote, it allows
organizations to add new members to the group in order to change the
results.  This seems undesirable to me.

(I'm coming to this from the perspective of a member of the CSS
working group, which officially has 19 participants from Google, 11
from Apple, 11 from Microsoft, 8 from Mozilla, 6 from Vivliostyle, 5
from Adobe, 5 from BPS, etc., but has also never held a vote.  But
I'm under the impression that there have been a small number of
working groups where voting was used a good bit.)


On Wednesday 2017-09-27 20:36 -0400, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
> Dear AC representative, WG Chair, or member of the public,
> The W3C Advisory Board is forwarding a proposed Process 2018 draft [1] to the Advisory Committee for consideration and comment. The plan is that, based on the received comments, a revised draft will be sent to the Advisory Committee for formal Review prior to the November TPAC meeting and that there will be time for questions and comments on the proposed Review document at the TPAC meeting.
> [1]https://w3c.github.io/w3process/
> The major changes in this document and their rationale, with links to the current process and a diff from it, are provided in a backgrounder [2].
> [2]https://www.w3.org/wiki/Process2018
> We call special attention to issue #5 - designed to increase agility for errata management moving us closer to a living standard model and issue #52 which updates participation and election rules for the TAG.
> Please send comments as soon as possible (to facilitate response preparation) and prior to October 26th (a 4 week comment period).  Specific comments on the text are best filed as Github issues or even pull requests at the Process CG github site<https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues>.
> More general discussion and comments should be sent topublic-w3process@w3.org  (Mailing list archive, publicly available) or toprocess-issues@w3.org  (Member-only archive).  You may discuss your comments on any other list, such asw3c-ac-forum@w3.org, as long as you send the comments to one of the W3process lists above and copy that list in the discussion.
> Jeff Jaffe, Chair, W3C Advisory Board
> Charles McCathie Nevile, Editor, W3C Process Document
> David Singer, Chair, W3C Process Document Task Force

𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                          https://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
             Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
             What I was walling in or walling out,
             And to whom I was like to give offense.
               - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)

Received on Monday, 23 October 2017 16:49:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:45 UTC