Skip to content

Facilitator not explicitly chair #1002

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 26, 2025

Conversation

frivoal
Copy link
Collaborator

@frivoal frivoal commented Mar 12, 2025

This is a suggestion by @ianbjacobs to work around the lack of a clearly defined group.


I think the explicit reference in the opening sentence to decisions (plural) being made based on that consensus is helpful.

This does lack clarity about what happens when there isn't consensus, though we may be able to combine it with #997 to deal with that case…

I am less certain about removing the the different types of decisions a that can conclude the phase. This is certainly simpler, but there distinction in the original text were deliberate.

Still, offering this PR for discussion.


Preview | Diff

@frivoal frivoal added the Agenda+ Marks issues or pull requests that are ready for discussion or consideration at the next meeting label Mar 12, 2025
@ianbjacobs ianbjacobs changed the title Facilitator not explicitely chair Facilitator not explicitly chair Mar 12, 2025
@ianbjacobs
Copy link
Contributor

Here is my thinking on reusing the term "Chair":

  • In previous discussions, the case was made to reuse the Process-defined concept of "formally addressing an issue." That made sense to me in that context because my approach was close enough, and there is value in reuse when fit for purpose.
  • In this case, I do not think the concepts of "group" and "Chair" as used throughout the process document today are fit for purpose for this situation. The roles of the Chair in the process document are for chartered groups or for meetings. There's very little in any case about the roles of a Chair in the process document, and the process document directs people to the Guide for a more complete definition. In the Guide, there are many aspects of Chairing that are irrelevant to this situation, hence my comment that the term as used commonly today does not lend itself readily for reuse here.
  • I also think it is unnecessary to add the concepts here in order to make the point that "someone is in charge" and establish roles and responsibilities.

Here is my thinking regarding conclusion of the charter refinement phase:

  • Ultimately the Team makes a decision based on input. Therefore, I found mention of three types of decisions (group, team, chair) to be confusing. It is both simpler and more accurate to say "The Team makes a decision" but it is important to indicate that the decision is based on community input (as we've discussed).
  • I suggest deleting "subject to Team verification that the expectations of charter refinement are fulfilled." That is overly prescriptive. Due to its role supporting the W3C mission, it's important that the Team be able to decide not to start refinement even if expectations are fulfilled and that they be able to start refinement even if expectations are not fulfilled (in order to enable the Consortium to make progress). As we've discussed, in these cases the Process Doc will require the Team to provide rationale to the Membership, and define the escalation path for Members if they don't agree with the decision and rationale.

Copy link
Member

@tantek tantek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems reasonable to allow this flexibility.

@frivoal frivoal force-pushed the facilitator-not-explicitely-chair branch from da501fe to 8485e1e Compare March 13, 2025 23:59
Copy link
Member

@tantek tantek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Re-approving with latest activity.

@css-meeting-bot
Copy link
Member

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Facilitator vs chair, and agreed to the following:

  • RESOLVED: Merge #1002 with the suggested change.
  • RESOLVED: Close #997 (replaced by suggested change)
The full IRC log of that discussion <fantasai> Subtopic: Facilitator vs chair
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//pull/1002
<fantasai> florian: Current Process text re-uses concepts from standard group practies, e.g. moving to CR.
<fantasai> ... definition of consensus, role of chair, etc.
<fantasai> ... However unlike Groups, we don't here have a clear definition of who the participants are
<fantasai> ... So Ian finds the analogy imperfect
<fantasai> ... of invoking group decision and chair concepts
<fantasai> florian: These changes are intended to keep the intention of reflecting consensus, without relying on those concepts
<fantasai> ... using plural "decisions" to clarify that it is all the decisions leading up to the final decision to submit to AC that need consensus, not just the final decision
<fantasai> ... [missed somethinga about Team Decisions]
<fantasai> ... simplify by calling everything a Team Decision
<fantasai> ... related PR 997 which adds a nuance to how we make decisions
<fantasai> ... votes are weird, so instead of vote, that PR asks the Team to make a decision
<fantasai> ... We can't take both PRs -- that one is adjusting how group decision is defined
<fantasai> ... whereas this is removing that concept
<fantasai> ... Overall I think this is clearer, particularly the part about whether to go forward or abandon the work
<fantasai> ... Paths to appeal continue to exist
<fantasai> ... I think it's a reasonable change to take
<plh> ack fantasai
<plh> fantasai: suggested change needs to be incorporated
<fantasai> ... we need to be clear when consensus cannot be found, that an overriding authority is used to make the decision
<fantasai> florian: Ian supports that suggested change as well
<fantasai> plh: OK, proposing to merge #1002 with the suggested change. Objections?
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge #1002 with the suggested change.
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Close #997 (replaced by suggested change)

@css-meeting-bot css-meeting-bot removed the Agenda+ Marks issues or pull requests that are ready for discussion or consideration at the next meeting label Mar 26, 2025
@frivoal frivoal added Closed: Accepted The issue has been addressed, though not necessarily based on the initial suggestion Topic: Chartering labels Mar 26, 2025
@frivoal frivoal added this to the Process 2024/2025 milestone Mar 26, 2025
@frivoal frivoal merged commit 3630ccd into w3c:main Mar 26, 2025
2 checks passed
@frivoal frivoal deleted the facilitator-not-explicitely-chair branch March 26, 2025 16:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Closed: Accepted The issue has been addressed, though not necessarily based on the initial suggestion Topic: Chartering
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants