Skip to content

Generalizing AC Appeals and using this procedure for recall. #888

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Draft
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Generalizing AC Appeals and using this procedure for recall. #888

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
6bd2728
Refactor AC Appeals
frivoal Jun 18, 2024
1962803
Add recall procedures for AB and TAG members
frivoal Jun 18, 2024
f381b85
Adjust terminology
frivoal Apr 22, 2025
8284e14
correct grammar
frivoal Apr 24, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
111 changes: 80 additions & 31 deletions index.bs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1344,6 +1344,31 @@ Removing AB or TAG members</h5>
the individual's seat on [=AB=] or [=TAG=] is [=vacated=] immediately.
The group must notify the [=AC=] of such a [=removal=] within one week.

<h5 id="AB-TAG-recall">
AC Recall of AB or TAG</h5>

The [=Advisory Committee=] <em class=rfc2119>may</em>
<dfn export>recall</dfn>,
as a whole,
all [[#AB-TAG-elections|elected]] and [[#TAG-appointments|appointed]] participants
from the [=Advisory Board=] or the [=Technical Architecture Group=].

An [=Advisory Committee representative=] initiates a [=recall=]
by sending a request to the Team, and <em class=rfc2119>should</em> also share this request with the Advisory Committee.
The request <em class=rfc2119>must</em> identify whether the [=AB=] or [=TAG=] is targeted,
and <em class=rfc2119>should</em> also include the rationale.

Within one week, the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> initiate an [=Advisory Committee Override=]
on the proposal.

The conclusion of the [=Advisory Committee Override=] is final,
and cannot be the subject of a [=Formal Objection=] nor of an [=AC Appeal=]:
if the [=Advisory Committee Override=] proposal passes,
all [[#AB-TAG-elections|elected]] and [[#TAG-appointments|appointed]] seats on [=AB=] or [=TAG=] are [=vacated=] immediately;
if it fails, it cannot be invoked on the same body
sooner than six months since the previous invocation.
The [=Team=] must announce the conclusion of the [=Advisory Committee Override=] to the [=Advisory Committee=].

<h5 id="AB-TAG-vacated">
Elected Groups Vacated Seats</h5>

Expand All @@ -1354,7 +1379,7 @@ Elected Groups Vacated Seats</h5>
the participant resigns, or

<li>
the participant is [=removed=], or
the participant is [=removed=] or [=recalled=], oor

<li>
an Advisory Board or TAG participant changes affiliations
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1384,7 +1409,7 @@ Elected Groups Vacated Seats</h5>
<li>
When an elected seat on either the [=AB=] or [=TAG=] is vacated,
the seat is filled at the next regularly scheduled election for the group
unless the group Chair requests that W3C hold an election before then
unless the group Chair requests that W3C hold a [=special election=] before then
(for instance, due to the group's workload).

<ul>
Expand All @@ -1398,16 +1423,19 @@ Elected Groups Vacated Seats</h5>
including a resignation effective as of a given date in the future.
</ul>

When such an election is held,
the minimum number of available seats is such that
when added to the number of continuing participants,
the minimum total number of elected seats is met
(8 for the [=TAG=], 9 for the [=AB=]);
and the maximum number corresponds to all unoccupied seats.
Except for the number of available seats and the length of the terms,
the <a href="#AB-TAG-elections">usual rules for Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Elections</a> apply.
<li>
If vacancies reduce the number of [=AB=] or [=TAG=] participants to 0,
the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> organize a [=special election=]
unless the next regularly scheduled election is fewer than three months away.
Comment on lines +1427 to +1429
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm worried about there being no TAG or AB at all for the 3 months + the normal election schedule. #1033 suggests extending terms if they're "too short". Riffing on that, what if this said something like

Suggested change
If vacancies reduce the number of [=AB=] or [=TAG=] participants to 0,
the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> organize a [=special election=]
unless the next regularly scheduled election is fewer than three months away.
If vacancies reduce the number of [=AB=] or [=TAG=] participants to 0,
the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> organize a [=special election=]
unless the next regularly scheduled election is fewer than three months away.
If the next regularly scheduled election is fewer than three months away, that
election must be held as soon as practical, with the newly elected members
serving until the dates their terms would have ended if the election had
been run at its normal schedule.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Riffing on @jyasskin's suggestion... "fewer than three months" doesn't read right to me. I think "less than three months" is the proper wording. Also, the repeated phrase feels clumsy, hence "in which case".

Suggested change
If vacancies reduce the number of [=AB=] or [=TAG=] participants to 0,
the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> organize a [=special election=]
unless the next regularly scheduled election is fewer than three months away.
If vacancies reduce the number of [=AB=] or [=TAG=] participants to 0,
the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> organize a [=special election=]
unless the next regularly scheduled election is less than three months away,
in which case, that
election must be held as soon as practical, with the newly elected members
serving until the dates their terms would have ended if the election had
been run at its normal schedule.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's a really long sentence @TallTed.

The terms of newly elected members is not specified for the case where the regular election is three months or more away. Also, given that this is a case where the election will be replacing people who would not ordinarily have been up for election at the next cycle, some more care is required in specifying terms.

</ul>

When a <dfn>special election</dfn> is held,
vacated seats are filled for the remainder of the term of the vacancy,
and the (minimum, maximum) number of available seats is
the number of seats required to meet
the (minimum, maximum) total defined for the group.
The <a href="#AB-TAG-elections">usual rules for Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Elections</a> otherwise apply.

<h3 id="GAGeneral" oldids="ChapterGroups, WG-and-IG">
Chartered Groups: Working Groups and Interest Groups</h3>

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1791,7 +1819,7 @@ Initiating Charter Refinement</h3>
and can be appealed only by 5 or more [=Members=],
through their [=Advisory Committee representative=],
formally objecting to the decision within 8 weeks of the decision being announced.
In this case the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> start an [=appeal vote=]
In this case the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> start an [=override vote=]
on whether to overturn the [=Team Decision=].
(No action is required to be taken when fewer than 5 members object.)

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2928,7 +2956,7 @@ Advisory Committee Votes</h3>

The [=Advisory Committee=] votes in <a href="#AB-TAG-elections">elections for seats on the TAG or Advisory Board</a>,
and in the event of an [=Advisory Committee Appeal=]
achieving the required support to trigger an [=appeal vote=].
achieving the required support to trigger an [=override vote=].
Whenever the [=Advisory Committee=] votes,
each Member or group of [=related Members=] has one vote.

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2962,24 +2990,50 @@ Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives</h3>

An [=Advisory Committee representative=] initiates an [=appeal=] by sending a request to the [=Team=],
and should also share this request with the [=Advisory Committee=].
The request should say “I appeal this Decision”
The request <em class=rfc2119>should</em> say “I appeal this Decision”
and identify the decision,
and may also include their rationale for appealing the decision.
and <em class=rfc2119>may</em> also include their rationale for the [=appeal=].

Note: See [[DECISION-APPEAL inline]] for a recommendation
on how to communicate an appeal request to the [=Team=] and the [=AC=].

Within one week the [=Team=] <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the appeal process
Within one week, the [=Team=] <em class="rfc2119">must</em> initiate the [=appeal=]
in the form of an [=Advisory Committee Override=]
on the proposal to overturn the decision.

The conclusion of the [=Advisory Committee Override=] is final;
the same decision cannot be appealed more than once.

If the [=Advisory Committee Override=]
approves the proposal to overturn the decision,
those who had initiated the proposal <em class=rfc2119>may</em> revise it
to address the causes of rejection
and follow the ordinary applicable process
to submit the revised proposal.

<h3 id="ac-override">
Advisory Committee Override</h3>

An <dfn export>Advisory Committee Override</dfn> is an exceptional two-step procedure
used to resolve certain matters where neither the usual [=consensus=]
process nor its [[#addressing-fo|escalation path]] is sufficient.

Note: Currently, this only applies to [=AC Appeals=]
and [=recalls=] of the [=AB=] or [=TAG=].

First, the [=Team=] <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the proposal for an [=Advisory Committee Override=]
to the [=Advisory Committee=]
and provide a mechanism for [=Advisory Committee representatives=]
to respond with a statement of positive support for this appeal.
to respond with a statement of positive support for holding a vote.
The archive of these statements <em class="rfc2119">must</em> be [=member-only=].

If, within <span class="time-interval">one week</span> of the Team's announcement,
5% or more of the [=Advisory Committee=] support the appeal request,
the Team <em class="rfc2119">must</em> organize an <dfn>appeal vote</dfn>
5% or more of the [=Advisory Committee=] support holding the vote,
the Team <em class="rfc2119">must</em> organize an <dfn>override vote</dfn>
asking the [=Advisory Committee=]
“Do you approve of the Decision?”
together with links to the decision and the appeal support.
whether they approve of the Advisory Committee Override proposal,
including details of the proposal
and links to support for holding the vote.

The ballot <em class="rfc2119">must</em> allow for three possible responses:
“Approve”,
Expand All @@ -2992,24 +3046,19 @@ Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives</h3>
(including explicit “abstain” ballots)
by [=Advisory Committee Representatives=]:
* if fewer than 5% participate,
the vote fails.
the proposal is rejected.
* if at least 5% but no more than 15% participate,
and the number of “Approve” ballots exceeds three times (3x) the number of “Reject” ballots,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This seems pretty silly. I understand the goal, but it encourages tactical voting due to it being non-contiguous. Opponents can withhold participation to get a better outcome.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It might be worth an example. For simplicity, let's assume 100 members.

At the 3x to 2x threshold (15%), four "reject" votes blocks any number of "approve" votes up to 11, but one more "reject" vote causes the motion to pass. This is because at 16 participating, five "reject" votes is overridden by 11 "approve" votes.

Worse, prior to the 2x to 1x threshold (20%), a motion is blocked by seven "reject" votes at 13:7 in favor. Up to six more "reject" votes causes the motion to pass. If opponents want to have their say and retain the same outcome, they need to find seven more "reject" votes (with no more "approve" votes).

There are ways to address this, but it involves math. I wonder if this goal is worth that.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We're not defining this mechanism here, just reusing it (and adjusting the phrasing slightly to make it work in new contexts). I suggest filing a separate issue if you dislike the mechanism itself. For context, this was adopted through PR #901, based on issue #886 (the prior state was a simple 50% majority, independent of the level of participation).

Now, as to the substance of the question, in case you do decide to pursue it, here's a little extra information / opinion:

  • It is true that this is discontinuous, and has slightly weird properties because of that, but I don't think it actually matters in practice, because it's very hard to operationalize: it's only reliably advantageous for "no" voters to refrain voting when close to the threshold if they can (a) know what the current tally is, and (b) count on no more "yes" vote coming in. Depending on how we set up the vote, (a) might be true, but we could easily guard against that by deciding that this must always be a secret ballot. And even if we don't, (b) won't be true, so people cannot really count on staying below the threshold.

  • I think there is value in having something of that nature in general to avoid consequence-heavy decisions being taken by accident just because not enough people were paying attention. Especially in the case of votes of no confidence, I consider them more likely than other kind of votes to be at risk of being invoked repeatedly by disgruntled parties. I think it would be unfortunate if the nth instance of a vote of no confidence passed despite wide opposition, simply because people got tired of answering largely the same question over and over again, or even on the first try because we're just past an election, and too many don't bother answer because they think it's obvious. So having a high bar when participation is low seems appropriate.

  • Though it is indeed a little odd, I think there's value in matching the same system used by the bylaws rather than coming up with something similar but different, even if better. Or we should change both to match.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this conversation is off-topic. Hopefully also resolved, but @martinthomson if you want to pursue this, please file a separate issue.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

None of this appears in the current process. I don't know how to manage that.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@martinthomson it does appear in the current editor's draft of the Process, at https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/. This was added in response to #886, through PR #901

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see. I disagree with that decision, but I'll take it up there.

the vote passes.
the proposal is approved.
* if more than 15% but fewer than 20% participate,
and the number of “Approve” ballots exceeds twice (2x) the number of “Reject” ballots,
the vote passes.
the proposal is approved.
* if 20% or more participate,
and the number of “Approve” ballots exceeds the number of “Reject” ballots,
the vote passes.
the proposal is approved.

If the vote passes,
the decision is overturned.
Following such rejection,
those who had initiated the proposal may revise it
to address the causes of rejection
and follow the ordinary applicable process
to submit the revised proposal.
Otherwise,
the proposal is rejected.

<h2 id="Reports">
W3C Technical Reports</h2>
Expand Down