Enable AB/TAG to remove one of their members #986
Conversation
frivoal
changed the title
|
Two concerns:
The combination of these two lead me to conclude that the authority of the CEO to remove an elected member is sufficient. The CEO is always entitled to solicit advice from any set of individuals and a duly elected member of the AB who obstructs the progress of that body need not become a showstopper such that Process has to grant special decision-making authority to the AB. |
| or to be acting in a way that seriously hampers the group's ability to function normally. | ||
|
|
||
| A chair of the [=AB=] or [=TAG=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> hold a hearing | ||
| on the potential [=removal=] of a participant | ||
| if requested by at least three of the participants in the group. | ||
| After giving the individual in question | ||
| an opportunity to defend themselves, | ||
| a vote on the proposed [=removal=] is held. | ||
| If at least three quarters of the participants in the group, | ||
| excluding the individual who is the subject of such vote, | ||
| then vote in favor of the proposal, | ||
| the individual's seat on [=AB=] or [=TAG=] is [=vacated=] immediately. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is "holding a different opinion" or "preventing a Council from reaching a decision by vote" potentially something that could be considered "hampering the group's ability to function"?
If so, I'd be (a tiny bit) concerned about an in extremis potential abuse of this mechanism to evict an AB or TAG member in order to remove them from a Council (assuming that the opportunity for dismissal had passed) in order to unlock a Council vote.
It's complex to do the maths on this but I suspect that there could be a scenario in which a majority of a Council could not be found but a three-quarters majority of the AB or the TAG could be found to remove one of them.
For practical purposes, this is a highly theoretical, i.e. unlikely to ever happen, matter of minutia, so doesn't seem like reasonable grounds for blocking the PR, but it would be good to know if anyone did work through the voting numbers given this three quarter majority requirement, and other contexts in which AB or TAG might participate in votes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@nigelmegitt I'd refer you to the documentation on Councils, as the situation you describe would not really make sense in the context of how councils are run. It's entirely possible for a council to proceed if someone (or multiple people but not enough to amount to overturning a vote) holds a minority opinion. You can find the details here: https://www.w3.org/policies/process/20231103/#council-deliberations
If someone decided to be so disruptive to any AB/TAG process, council or otherwise, that the bodies couldn't conduct their expected responsibilities, that seems to be a valid premise to initiate this procedure. For it to pass, there is still the requirement of 3/4 of the group voting in favour, which is a significant bar. I'd add that in the case where someone is this disruptive, there is an impact on the membership as well, even if the membership did vote for them.
The minutes for today aren't available yet, but I will share what I said in support of this change: this is an edge case, and hopefully the most edgy of cases. There are a million steps that come before a decision like this, and I hope we never have to use it, but it is good to have it in the situation where we need it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Another observation:
Membership of each Council instance is fixed at formation,
Making someone not be a AB/TAG member anymore doesn't remove them from the council. Now, it would possible to form a new council without the excluded individual(s) by using the following provision:
However, if participation in a Council falls so low as to hinder effective and balanced deliberations, the W3C Council Chair should dissolve the Council and call for a new one to be convened.
but if that's just to get rid of a person or two, that wouldn't be a case of "falls so low as to hinder effective and balanced deliberations", and would be pretty solid grounds for escalation / appeal.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's entirely possible for a council to proceed if someone (or multiple people but not enough to amount to overturning a vote) holds a minority opinion.
@wareid Sure, but that's a slightly different scenario. I am considering if the Council is split, and removal of one person causes their opinion to become a minority opinion. And the point is that a Council has a different membership to either TAG or AB on their own, so TAG or AB could hypothetically remove someone even if their removal would not have happened had that decision been made by the collective members of the Council.
However @frivoal makes a good point that removal from TAG/AB doesn't imply removal from a currently operating Council, which has its own distinct removal mechanism.
Is it worth raising an issue to clarify that removal of a member from TAG/AB does not remove them from any Council of which they are currently a member? At the moment this is implied by omission, but it could be noted explicitly for the avoidance of doubt.
I completely agree this is an exceedingly edgy edge case, and as I noted, more a question of wanting to know someone thought this sort of scenario through, rather than blocking the PR. Which we now seem to have done in this thread 😀.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agree this is worth clarifying.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's follow up about this aspect in #1006
| to be grossly neglecting their duties, | ||
| or to be acting in a way that seriously hampers the group's ability to function normally. | ||
|
|
||
| A chair of the [=AB=] or [=TAG=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> hold a hearing |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There should be explicit detail here about who is invited to that hearing; both who must be invited (I'd expect the relevant body, including the individual) and who is allowed. Also, whether this is publicized or not. (I would expect not, but it shouild be explicit that it's confidential, perhaps?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
created #1007 to follow up on that
|
|
||
| <ul> | ||
| <li> | ||
| the participant resigns, or | ||
|
|
||
| <li> | ||
| the participant is [=removed=], or | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it not the intent that this would replace the ability below (in lines 1362-1366) for the CEO to dismiss the participant? I would have expected those lines to be removed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I strongly object.
It's one thing to create a supplemental mechanism for one body to remove one of their members, to prevent a situation that has yet to happen, as a way to afford multiple paths to resolving problems so you aren't bottlenecked on one single path, and it's another thing entirely to strip the existing authority. This was presented in the 20 March AB meeting as a supplemental mechanism.
Furthermore, W3C has a Board of Directors who oversees the CEO and their actions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure how this was presented as a supplemental mechanism - the minutes haven't been released yet so I can't link to them, but I said "I am def in favor of switching this to AB itself managing", and there were several others who I thought agreed.
How is the Board (who have precisely this 3/4-vote-of-its-own-membership-to-eject rule) and their oversight of the CEO relevant?
Or maybe more to the point: in what case would it be critical for the CEO to be able to eject an AB member, without the support of 3/4 of the rest of the AB?
|
[[ |
plehegar
added
Agenda+
|
The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed
The full IRC log of that discussion<fantasai> Topic: Edits for Removing AB/TAG Members<fantasai> github: https://github.com//pull/986 <fantasai> plh: Added because AB resolved on adopting this mechanism <fantasai> florian: [summarizes proposal] <fantasai> ... unclear if the AB adopted specific text, or open to tweaking <cwilso> q+ <fantasai> fantasai: AB adopted the mechanism with 3/4 threshold. We can refine the wording, though. <fantasai> florian: Note that Council membership is fixed, not affected by this. <fantasai> ... would prefer to do that as a follow-up PR <fantasai> florian: Other point is whether this new ability comes in addition or instead of the CEO's ability to remove people (which until now was only way to remove people) <fantasai> cwilso: I stated that I was in favor of switching, and made clear that it was a replacement <fantasai> ... I believe the minutes will agree that several others were on board with that as the plan <fantasai> ... but it wasn't a major point of discussion <fantasai> ... I'm not sure why we would be adding more ways to remove members? <fantasai> ... If 3/4 of AB or TAG says "this member should be removed", pretty sure CEO would go along with that. So we would be saying we don't need CEO. <fantasai> ... leaving to CEO to decide, "This person is disruptive, I don't like their feedback", that's concerning <fantasai> plh: Was the CEO involved in the discussion? <fantasai> cwilso: He was not attending. Some Team were there. <fantasai> plh: Would want CEO to be aware of that change. <fantasai> plh: Not ready to merge this PR today... <plh> ack cwilso <plh> ack fantasai <cwilso> +1 that we could add this today, and I think we had support from the AB to do so. <fantasai> fantasai: I didn't think it was clear in the discussion that we were removing the CEO mechanism <cwilso> q+ to say I would like to address the other question in this version of hte process <fantasai> ... but I think it was clear that we are adding this one, so I think we should merge this PR <plh> ack cwilso <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to say I would like to address the other question in this version of hte process <fantasai> ... unless we feel that this PR is not a good representation of that mechanism <fantasai> cwilso: I would like us to consider this at the same time. We should go back to AB and ask this question, not leave it open <fantasai> florian: Do you mean you don't want to merge PR and wait several cycles of Process, or <fantasai> cwilso: correct <fantasai> florian: but no problem with merging, and quickly following up with AB? <fantasai> cwilso: correct <fantasai> ... We agreed on this change, let's merge it. But we should follow up on the CEO question. <fantasai> plh: Proposed to merge PR as-is, and open issue of removing CEO ability and quickly cycle with AB on that front. <fantasai> cwilso: I thought when we discussed in the AB that we were agreeing to replace this ability. <fantasai> ... I think it's goofy to add rather than replaced, but certainly not opposed, since I think this is what we should be doing. <fantasai> plh: Any objection to merging? <fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR #986 <fantasai> ACTION: fantasai follow up with AB about whether we meant to remove the CEO removal powers or not |
css-meeting-bot
removed
the
Agenda+
frivoal
added
the
Closed: Accepted
|
To make it clear:
|
|
Note that the TAG did not get asked about this pull request: consensus on this point |
See #882
Though they serve related purposes, individual removal by members of the same body and recall of the entire body by its electorate are procedurally distinct. Discussions in #888, which attempted to do both, show debates about each part. In particular, #888 has many comments about various part of collective removal.
To simplify discussion, this pull request isolates the individual removal by members of the same body, since it does not depend on the rest. Refer also to the comment thread at #888 (comment), which discussed this aspect in #888.
Discussion of collective removal can continue in #888