-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 162
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
Conversation
Here is my thinking on reusing the term "Chair":
Here is my thinking regarding conclusion of the charter refinement phase:
|
There was a problem hiding this 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.
da501fe
to
8485e1e
Compare
There was a problem hiding this 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.
The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed
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) |
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