Chair appointment community involvement, transparency, enabling objections and handling them

[frivoal]

When team appointments of Chairs are done as part of a new Charter, AC Reps can Formally Object as part of the Charter review. In case of a Charter Extension, which may at the same time change the Chair, AC Reps can initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal. That seems enough to provide an opportunity for oversight, but there’s currently no way to Object to a change of Chair at other times. Maybe we should allow Formal Objections to Chair changes, or some other process, such as ratification by the AB.

[dwsinger]

I think in the process re-write, we're saying that the AC can appeal "any decision". An AC appeal seems awfully heavy for objecting to a chair choice, and humiliating for the chair. I think we need to trust the team to pick decent chairs, or to work with the unhappy people quietly.

[TzviyaSiegman]

I agree with @dwsinger. AC is likely not well-informed about who/why a chair is chosen as well. Not all decisions are well-made by committee.

[dwsinger]

Noted that this seems orthogonal to director-free; request to move this to the general process.

[dwsinger]

It should be clear that making public, formal, complaints, about specific people (chairs) should be very much a last resort, and that more discreet methods should be tried first (talk to the team)

[frivoal]

@dwsinger, is your proposal to add a sentence near the definition of Formal Objections saying that any decision can be objected to, followed by some indication that people should attempt more diplomatic approaches first?

If so, I can try and draft that.

[michaelchampion]

There has to be a way to hold the team accountable for bad decisions, e.g. chair selection. Of course we hope these cases are rare, and yes people will be embarrassed, but we can’t assume the team will always do the right thing and that the membership has no recourse if they don’t.

The appeal path would seem to be: first to the CEO, then to the AC (current system) or Board (once a legal entity is established). Appeal to the AC or Board is indeed heavyweight and there should be a high bar on getting such an appeal heard (e.g. the 5% of the membership explicitly requesting a decision be overturned, and language strongly suggesting diplomacy/mediation first), but it needs to exist as a check on the power of the Team.

[dwsinger]

Let's see if I can clear up.

a) Yes, any formal decision can have a formal objection.

b) The recourse process if you don't like a chair appointment is (a) to talk to the team member for that group, and escalate up the team as needed; (b) to raise an FO, and if that doesn't result in satisfaction, you can (c) raise an AC appeal against the FO decision. Ouch.

[frivoal]

Made a pull request to attempt to address this: #299

Feedback welcome.

[dwsinger]

(see the Process Call logs for July 24th 2019, probably https://www.w3.org/2019/07/24-w3process-minutes.html)

[dwsinger]

(we expect to clean this up as part of the Director-free rewrite)

[dwsinger]

florian: Came out of Director-free discussion
... but was a broader topic
... Not clear right now it's not clear if possible to object to change in chair if done outside of regular chartering
... We considered that objecting to a chair is not particularly great method, better to just discuss with Team
... but should still have an objection process if needed

(see associated Pull Request #299)
florian: So the suggestion was "if there's a decision, you can object to it"
... generally

dsinger: My comment was that it needs to be clear that you can object to any formal decision
... but don't have formal decision formally defined

florian: Said that you could object to XXX Decisions, which are all defined
... all of these can be objected to

plh: We have to be careful here.
... In the past, you can object to any decision made by the Director
... including chair appointment, because that was a Director decision
... CEO Decision is a bit weird, you want to be a bit careful
... Also today we have a Steering Group that makes decisions, you can't really object to those
... Your scope is a little bit too broad

jeff_: On the issue of objecting to chair appointments...
... I'm trying to parse what htis issue is
... do we believe that in the current Process as written that it's possible to object to chair appointments?
... Is it disallowed? Or not clear how to do it mechanically?

florian: Unclear
... Last time discussed in the AB, some sense that it shoudl be allowed
... So trying to make it clear

jeff_: I'm generally not infavor of adding text to clarify that some case is allowed when it's already allowed unless it's become an issue of some sort
... Is there a case that people wanted to object to a new chair but weren't sure how or somethng?

florian: It was surfaced during the discussion of Director-free
... This was soemthing Director did, that some other method would be needed
... Raised question of how to object to it

jeff_: Another question
... Do we think the Team has the authority to appoint a new chair if one steps down?

florian: In Director-free then yes, Team does this
... Because Team has less theoretical authority than great Director, what about if AC disagrees

plh: Distinction between appeal and objection?

florian: ...

plh: Why would AC have option to appeal but not object?
... We need to be clear of who can object and who can appeal

florian: Appeal isn't a general-purpose mechanism for everything
... It can be invoked in limited circumstances
... More cases there's formal objections
... and there are some other things where there's nothing

<jeff_> https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#WGArchiveMinorityViews
florian: Trying to make so have formal objections in those cases

jeff_: Unsure about formal objections in this round of Process
... The formal objection definition is mostly about technical arguments
... technical arguments to change the chair?
... Lots of stuff which could be cleaned up
... Not sure why pick this particular issue
... Don't disagree with the logic, but not obvious worth doing at this point.

florian: Issue was discovered during Director-free discussions
... found to be more general than Director issues
... No particular urgency to fi

jeff_: Would need to do some significant clean up of this section in general
... This section should say "Decisions are made in W3C by WG, Team, whatever"
... and each decision can be objected to

florian: Isn't that what I'm doing?

fantasai: No, you're not defining everything up front like jeff suggested

jeff_: I think we need to substantially reframe decisions in Director-free
... If opening that box of code, let's do the rewrite there.

florian: So Defer until Director-free?

plh: I'm also supposed to represent again the formal objection situation in August
... If we're changing what Formal Objection is, have to take that into account
... If we say Team, and can object to decisions by the Team,
... Does this mean the Council will also have to look at those issues?
... That would potentially increase the issues that Council has to decide
... And what if person involved in Council?

jeff_: That's one of several reasons why ? had some conclusions that weren't thought through

dsinger: So punt this and clean it up as part of Director-free branch

RESOLUTION: Work on this as part of Director-free branch

[samuelweiler]

As a point of comparison, I don't think the IETF allows appeals (their formal escalation process, comparable to W3C's Formal Objections) re: chair appointment, and I have not seen that be a problem. When the party responsible for appointing and replacing chairs does not act to remedy a problem, the community will start filing appeals about that chair's decisions. Even though those appeals are nominally about individual decisions, the memo will get through.

I don't think we need to add process for Formally Objecting to chair selection.

[mnot]

@samuelweiler incorrect; see this statement and the referenced spec.

Basically, any decision in the IETF can be appealed.

[samuelweiler]

@mnot, Thank you for the correction.

[plehegar]

2 things on this front:

1- Is appointing Chair(s) a team decision?
the director-branch free says "The Team appoints (and re-appoints) Chairs for all groups". Since we're making the term "Team decision" to carry a specific meaning, may be worth clarifying?

2- if we go down this road, not replacing a co-chair should be subject to appeal as well. Since those things do get announced as well (see example), not sure if we need to be that explicit in the Process.

[cwilso]

Would be interested to understand where the authority (and ability to object) goes for UN-appointing (that is, removing) chairs, as well.

[plehegar]

mu understanding is that, since the Director appoints, he gets the right to nominate new Chairs at any time, which includes removing one (co-)chair. With Director-free, it would be the team. Again, this would get announced, thus subject to objection/appeal, like in my point 2 above.

[dwsinger]

it's the decisions represented in the announcement; that X is being removed, that Y is appointed, as chair.

[cwilso]

Can these be objected to today? Because I would have done so.

…

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:46 AM David Singer ***@***.***> wrote: it's the decisions represented in the announcement; that X is being removed, that Y is appointed, as chair. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#281 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAD3Y6JEHO6S5ZJLS5IRI4TSHNESBANCNFSM4HOCKHWQ> .

[samuelweiler]

@samuelweiler incorrect; see this statement and the referenced spec.

Basically, any decision in the IETF can be appealed.

@mnot. As above, thank you for the correction, and apologies for getting this wrong. I see now that the history of this is "interesting". The statement you cite was inspired by the IESG denying an appeal of the removal of three chairs. On initial reading, some thought the response said chair selection decisions could not be appealed, which led to a thread on the IETF list and the above statement. (A thread instigated by a former IAB member, who later served again on the IAB, including as its chair, and in other interesting roles. Given that he read the response that way, too, I don't feel so bad.)

[dwsinger]

@cwilso I think that's the essence of this issue. We're not sure; can you FO or appeal a chair appointment? It appears to be a 'decision' but it's not defined whether all/any/some decisions can be appealed/FOd.

[frivoal]

I think there are 3 possible understandings of when Formal Objections can be raised:

1. by responding "I formally object" in a wbs poll where that option is offered
2. by saying "I formally object" when a group chair is calling for consensus
3. as a response to any decision

I think in practice, 1 is by far the most common, and 2 happens occasionally (or is threatened occasionally, which is often enough to avoid the decision being made in the first place).

By my reading of the process, 3 is possible as well. However:

• that fact itself is a little fuzzy (this is the essence of this issue)
• even if that right is established, how to invoke it in practice is a little fuzzy as well.

[cwilso]

In my experience, It is absolutely unclear that one even CAN "object" to an announcement of a new chair being chosen.

[dwsinger]

Yes, there are a bunch of decisions (which result in announcements) where it's unclear both

• whether one can object
• and if so, how, or what the correct course is

Chair appointment (and removal) is one of those unclear decisions.

I think the process needs to be clear on (a) who has the authority to make these decisions and (b) what the objection mechanism is, if any.

[cwilso]

The tenor of these announcements today is drastically different than progressing a Rec-track document, for example: the Team simply announces who the new chair is. In effect, your objection would be attempting to remove a current chair. (By contrast, the announcement of Rec-track document progression is a "we're going to do this, unless there are objections to resolve first.") That seems like something one simply cannot object to.

[michaelchampion]

Hmm, is the Process Document the right place for this kind of fundamental guidance that is currently in the prerogative of the Director? The Process could get awfully long and complex if it enumerates how to do everything the Director nominally does, but has always delegated to the Team, and provides an escalation path for those who object to a particular decision.

Chair appointments feels more like "member agreement material" to me; members should know what they're signing up for, and fundamental assumptions they make about the organization when joining shouldn't change as a consequence of annual Process Document tweaks. (Painful memories of how members lost the right to cast one vote per open seat in AB / TAG elections flash back ...) But of course the member agreement is hard to revise, so it's hard to fix problems that come to light..

On the specific point of chair appointments: The initial appointments are part of the charter, so AC members can object to the initial chairs just like they can to any charter provision in the ballot. Adding additional appeals seems overly cumbersome. Once a WG is up and running, I believe the WG itself should have the right to change chairs, or at least add charter language outlining their procedure fo approve / remove chairs. Again, the AC can object to that language, just like any other charter provision.

[chaals]

Right now organisations just approach the team, who have been known to accept the request without letting the membership know. Many of the commenters are aware of this and know they could do so. Is the goal to ensure every AC rep knows this, or to ensure that there is a more public process for stating an objection and discussing it?

When a charter is sent for review (as they are), the chairs are listed. Should changing or adding a chair mean a review, in the same way that some groups happily have a charter review to add a deliverable?

[frivoal]

Even though I initially raised this issue about chair appointments specifically, I am more concerned about the generalized version of the question: can any decision be objected to, or can only AC reviews with an associated wbs poll be objected to, or is it just AC Reviews + wg decisions, or is it something else yet again?

My understanding of the Process as it is today is that anything can be objected to, and thus we do not need to detail every case individually. Some objections may be frivolous or without merit and easily overruled, but if someone believes a decision—any decision—was inappropriate, there exists a path for escalation, called formal objection, through which you ask the Director to take a (second) look at the problem at hand.

I also believe that this will become more important in a post-director world, because as long as we had an omnipotent director, whether a formal objection is recognized or not, if you convince Tim to doing something, he can just do it, but in a post director world, unless it is formalized, there isn't an obvious authority with the power to overturn things.

I don't think it would be useful to go list a hundred different cases of various things that can be objected to, but if we insist that not every can be objected to, then we would need to list what can.

[cwilso]

Yes, but pretty much every decision is put through a poll, with an option to Formally Object, except for chair appointments outside of the charter process. (That includes chair removals, which to be fair, should probably have at least a formal objection process as well except in cases of CEPC violation.)

[dwsinger]

I think team-appoint works well up until the point we have controversy, either multiple volunteers, or a controversial appointment. An FO about a specific person is kinda public and "in your face", and having the team arbitrate between volunteers less than ideal. Perhaps we need (a) to use the AB's ability to have in-camera sessions as a way to handle sensitive objections and (b) holding votes - indicative or definitive - to settle chairing conflicts when there are multiple volunteers?

[cwilso]

Process should include something like "With input from the WG members, Team appoints chairs..." as well as enabling objections to chair appointments. I would suggest changing the title of this issue to "More inclusive chair appointment: asking for input and enabling objections".

[samuelweiler]

I think team-appoint works well up until the point we have controversy, either multiple volunteers, or a controversial appointment. ... having the team arbitrate between volunteers less than ideal. Perhaps we need (a) to use the AB ... to settle chairing conflicts when there are multiple volunteers?

I have a different view. As a team person selecting chairs, I see having multiple volunteers as a good thing. I think I'll make a better decision when faced with a pool of candidates and asking "which will be best for this group?" than when faced with only one person and wondering "is someone better out there?". In summary, I want the default course of chair selection to embrace the "controversy" of considering multiple candidates.

I welcome a practice of broadly soliciting feedback, so long as feedback then goes to a small group which then makes the chair decision. Perhaps have the team make the decision with the consent/ratification of the AB? I do NOT feel a need (yet) to mandate a broad feedback practice. While I think it's useful, I think the appointing body (e.g. team) could adopt that practice without needing Process changes.

As a datapoint, the IETF frequently requests broad input, both as part of its NomCom process and for other appointments (e.g. ISOC board appointments, ICANN liaison appointments). That feedback goes confidentially to the deciding body - the feedback is generally not public, and there are no whole-IETF votes. Sometimes a list of candidates, while publicly available, is not publicly archived - e.g. it is not emailed to public lists nor readily findable by search engine - in part so as to have rejection not become a black mark on those rejected.

[cwilso]

To be clear - today, it is quite possible that a WG member won't even know there is a need until the Team announces the appointment of a new chair. I wasn't even saying that the Team should not be the small group to make the decision - only that the WG should have the opportunity to provide input before they do so.

[dwsinger]

Hope "Chair appointment community involvement, transparency, enabling objections and handling them" is inclusive enough as a title

[cwilso]

It certainly includes a lot. :). (I'm fine with it.)

[jyasskin]

Thanks @plehegar for pointing out that this issue already existed. The Guide can't define appeals and objections, but I think it's a good place to start for community involvement and transparency since it's faster to iterate on than the Process's annual cadence.

[csarven]

With greater transparency from the W3C Team on the decision-making process and rationale for the choice of proposed chairs is likely to reduce potential objections, which I would assume to be one of the key goals here.

An example of a recent WG charter proposal: the vast majority of the (formal) objections had to do with the proposed chairs, which accounted for ~30% of the AC reviews! Not a typo. This was entirely a W3C Team decision (no documentation available to the public) despite the facts available to all. This may be an exception and surely there are varying degrees of this, but it is the sort of thing that may both undermine the community confidence and stall progress.

Efforts could be made by the W3C Team to mitigate this by publishing:

1. the criteria which the W3C Team can use to be objective as possible in decision making, e.g., along the lines of Self-Review Questionnaire for Chair Candidates.
2. providing rationale on how each proposed chair meets the criteria (better than the other chair candidates).

There may of course be other factors, so the above is not intended to exclude other applicable variables.

[michaelchampion]

I'm not sure if this is a helpful response to a 5 year old issue ... but:

• I agree the decision criteria the Team (and FO Councils) use should be as explicit and transparent as feasible.
• The old Process that assumed a Director to backstop groups that can't reach consensus is gone, the Process Document AFAIK made a lot of s/Director/Team/ edits which generally makes sense, but there are some (like chair selection) that require nuanced judgment that is not easily captured in explicit criteria or can be exposed transparently.
• For chair selection, that judgment should be made by the community creating a WG or the existing WG needing new chairs. The team should probably be involved to certify that was a reasonable decision (e.g., a real person without a history of creating dissension and without obvious conflicts of interest ...). But the Team SHOULD NOT serve as a referee / tiebreaker if the community can't agree on chairs.
• If a Charter gets to the AC without such consensus, and there are significant FOs against the chosen chairs by engaged members of the community, the Team / FO Council should return the charter to the community drafting it until they find consensus.

[chaals]

It seems there is clearly a mechanism to treat naming a new chair as a W3C decision, and appeal it. I don't see anything suggested that seems a better process to do so. Thus I think we could formally close this issue.

It has brought up some issues of practice, and I have a few thoughts:

I think there is a fair bit of scope not to be overly transparent in selection of chairs. It's inevitably a weighing of people's skills and talents, and hanging all that out in public seems likely to reduce the number of people prepared to take on the task.

Failure to consult the community, such that there is a big discussion on the choice of a chair, is a clear sign of getting it Seriously Wrong and the Team should indeed have a Good Hard Look at every such incident.

But over the years the Team has made hundreds of these choices without the behind-the-scenes controversy that they regularly involve actually spilling out to affect the groups and their work. IMHO, that's a good thing.

An open process to call for volunteers seems like a good idea. I suggest that responses be considered Team-confidential. In practice, this gives the Team flexibility to sound out the community and make sure they are getting it right. If it still goes wrong they know whom they asked, and can readjust their ideas of who the community is to match reality better.

Publishing the general expectations of a chair (e.g. in /Guide) makes plenty of sense, and seems necessary if we have an open call.

A formal process publishing the names of individuals considered and rationales for rejecting them, on the other hand, seems like a bad idea.