Re: Asynchronous decision making (Re: WebAppSec re-charter status)

That is my one concern as well - the direction of the asynchrony.  Often
times discussions on the list grind to a halt, and the call is our
opportunity to have an "accountability moment" and get those with divergent
opinions to work to consensus in a timely manner.   Throwing another 10
days on the end after a 7 day call for consensus does seem to meaningfully
delay things without any precedent for a problem with our current procedure.

-Brad



On Wed Feb 04 2015 at 8:10:56 AM Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> http://www.w3.org/2014/06/webapps-charter.html#decisions
>> > As explained in the W3C Process Document (section 3.3), this group will
>> seek to make decisions when there is consensus and with due process. The
>> expectation is that typically, an editor or other participant makes an
>> initial proposal, which is then refined in discussion with members of the
>> group and other reviewers, and consensus emerges with little formal voting
>> being required. However, if a decision is necessary for timely progress,
>> but consensus is not achieved after careful consideration of the range of
>> views presented, the Chairs should put a question out for voting within the
>> group (allowing for remote asynchronous participation -- using, for
>> example, email and/or web-based survey techniques) and record a decision,
>> along with any objections. The matter should then be considered resolved
>> unless and until new information becomes available.
>> >
>> > Any resolution taken in a face-to-face meeting or teleconference is to
>> be considered provisional until 10 working days after the publication of
>> the resolution in draft minutes sent to the working groups mailing list. If
>> no objections are raised on the mailing list within that time, the
>> resolution will be considered to have consensus as a resolution of the
>> Working Group.
>> >
>> > This charter is written in accordance with Section 3.4, Votes of the
>> W3C Process Document and includes no voting procedures beyond what the
>> Process Document requires.
>>
>
> I'm not thrilled with injecting an additional mandatory 10-day delay for
> decisions... we're slow enough as-is. :)
>
> In the past, we've generally _confirmed_ decisions on calls (e.g. CfC
> issued -> no objections on the list -> confirmed on the next call). Would
> we need to wait an additional 10 days to act on that decision in that
> context, or would that not be considered a "resolution taken in a ...
> teleconference"?
>
> Otherwise, LGTM. :)
>
> -mike
>
> --
> Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, @mikewest
>
> Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München,
> Germany, Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der
> Gesellschaft: Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth
> Flores
> (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)
>