Define minutes

[frivoal]

See #511

---

Preview | Diff

[jeffjaffe]

By making it a MUST to record decisions, does it imply that any decisions that are not recorded - in fact are not decisions (and hence may not be implemented, may not be objected to, etc.)?

[nigelmegitt]

Another possible gap: is it required that when decisions are recorded, they are explicitly identified in the minutes as decisions? For example:

1. Informal style:

group: [some discussion of a potential change]
[chair]: Ok let's go ahead and make that change.

2. Formal style:

group: [discussion of a change]
PROPOSAL: Change X to Y
[chair]: Any objections to the proposal?
group: No objections
[chair]: We have consensus: this is a group decision.
RESOLUTION: Change X to Y

My reading of the current proposed wording is that either would be acceptable. I'm not sure if that's reasonable though. What's the worst that could happen with the informal style? Someone casually reviewing the minutes misses the discussion, or misunderstands what the decision actually was, and then later there is pain, distress and expense when an objection to the decision is raised some time after the group's decision review period has ended, and maybe only on transition to a higher maturity level of a technical report. Not sure if this is bad enough to require any degree of formality though.

[chaals]

@jeffjaffe

By making it a MUST to record decisions, does it imply that any decisions that are not recorded - in fact are not decisions

That seems to be the logical conclusion, and I think that is a positive thing. It should be noted in the chapter on decisions, as well.

[chaals]

@nigelmegitt

is it required that when decisions are recorded, they are explicitly identified in the minutes

I agree that we can leave this unspecified, but that if we do the outcome will indeed be that groups where there is disagreement on issues eventually learn that it is helpful to have explicit documentation.

[frivoal]

@jeffjaffe If a consensus falls in a forest and no one is around to record it, does it make a decision?

[fantasai]

A decision is defined to exist when the chair as assessed the consensus of the group (or the results of a vote), and its definition doesn't hinge on the existence of minutes: https://w3c.github.io/w3process/#decisions

That said, it's pretty impractical to use unrecorded decisions as the basis for any formal steps in the Process, as we generally ask for a link to the record of the decision...

[nigelmegitt]

Symmetry with reopening decisions

That said, it's pretty impractical to use unrecorded decisions as the basis for any formal steps in the Process, as we generally ask for a link to the record of the decision...

Worth comparing with §3.3.4, which says, in the context of reopening decisions:

The Chair should record that a decision has been reopened, and must do so upon request from a group participant.

So it would make sense to have symmetry for when decisions are made in the first place, e.g.:

The Chair should record a decision, and must do so upon request from a group participant.

Add a note too?

It also sounds like a Note would be useful along the lines of:

Note: Some steps defined in the Process require that Decisions are recorded, such as advancement of Recommendation track specifications.

[frivoal]

@wseltzer We've reworded the sentence you didn't like. Is now reads:

Details of the discussion leading to such decisions are not required, provided that the rationale for the is nonetheless clear.

Is this acceptable?

[chaals]

@frivoal quoted

provided that the rationale for the is nonetheless clear.

s/for the// otherwise the sentence is grammatically broken.

[frivoal]

s/for the// otherwise the sentence is grammatically broken.

Sorry, that was a failure to escape a bit of markup.

It's supposed to read:

…provided that the rationale for the group decision is nonetheless clear…

[frivoal]

Given that we had conceptual agreement on this during the call, and the blocker was Wendy's concern with wording, which has now been resolved, I'm taking the liberty to merge this, in the interest of no overloading the next call with minor things.

Notice to the chair: @dwsinger, if you think this was overstepping as an editor, feel free to schedule it for discussion.