Re: webid serializations consensus 2023

I’m not trying to be pedantic but previous experiences have taught me that decision making at a group level is better done with clearly defined and agreed upon rules and processes.

Quoting from the charter [1]:

> this group will seek to make decisions when there is consensus

Quoting from the W3C Process Document [2] :

> Consensus:
>   A substantial number of individuals in the set support the decision and there is no sustained objection from anybody in the set. Individuals in the set may abstain. Abstention is either an explicit expression of no opinion or silence by an individual in the set.

Quoting from the guide to the role of Chair [4]:

> Appoints document editors.


Leaving my offer to the side for a second, Henry has called for a vote on the handover to the Solid WG to the group here [3] and so far I count 3 explicit votes: Henry, Melvin and I. I do not read that as a substantial number of individuals, moreso if we consider the total number of members (70) but also if we only consider those who’ve been active recently (20). In fact, more people encouraged me to edit the spec than those who stated their vote for or against the Solid WG handover.

Handing over to the Solid WG is a significant decision and it needs to be taken in a way that respects the time that we have collectively spent participating in these discussions. If we are to choose by means of “lazy consensus”, in which lack of objection after sufficient notice is taken as assent as per the Process Document, at the very least least the vote should be called again making that very clear. Likewise, it might be a good idea to define a minimum threshold of active support before moving forward:

> To avoid decisions where there is widespread apathy, (i.e., little support and many abstentions), groups should set minimum thresholds of active support before a decision can be recorded.


I’m hesitant to call votes myself as, based on my readings and talks with members of other groups, this is something that the chair should do. I’ve pinged Henry a few times but I don’t think he’s ever responded. I can’t find any documentation on what to do if the chair is unresponsive. My gut feeling, based on the assumption that the Chair is ultimately there to facilitate the activity of the group and therefore can not act against the group’s documented will, would be to:

1. Gather consensus on a minimum threshold of active support, the manner in which a vote should be called and casted and the duration of the voting window
2. If and once the voting process is agreed upon, vote on the handover to the Solid WG, with or without approval by the chair
3. If that vote passes, vote on my editing the "consensus report document” (I have just made up that name)
4. If that vote passes, I’m good to go

If, at any point in this process, Henry were to facilitate things as the Chair of this group, that would make me very happy.

[1]: https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/charter
[2]: https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20230612/#Consensus
[3]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2023Jun/0001.html
[4]: https://www.w3.org/Guide/chair/role.html

Received on Wednesday, 5 July 2023 20:10:16 UTC