Re: webid serializations consensus 2023

st 5. 7. 2023 v 22:10 odesílatel Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com>
napsal:

> 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.
>

Regrettably, our group lacks an active chair, and to my knowledge, a chair
was never formally chosen by the CG. Our current incumbent self-selected
over a decade ago and has been sporadically present. Given this, relying on
the chair's assistance, may result in unnecessary delays.


>
> [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
>
>
>
>