Skip to content
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

[director-free] Should the Council be all TAG+AB, or smaller and separately elected? #293

Closed
dwsinger opened this issue Jun 25, 2019 · 5 comments
Labels
Closed: Accepted The issue has been addressed, though not necessarily based on the initial suggestion Director-free (all) All issues & pull request related to director-free. See also the topic-branch Director-free: FO/Council Issues realted to the W3C Council and Formal Objection Handling
Milestone

Comments

@dwsinger
Copy link
Contributor

Forked from #290

  1. Contentious working groups manage with a membership quite a bit larger than 22.

  2. Part of the credibility is that indeed there are enough people to represent a diversity of opinion, and that it's both the AB (notionally process and procedure and operations experts) and TAG (notional technology and architecture experts). I would be strongly opposed to both the overhead of a separate election, and to having 'too small' a group.

  3. You seem entirely happy to live with the WHATWG that is governed by, and issues are decided by, a small and completely unelected group, yet seem strangely resistant to having the elected groups at the W3C decide issues.

  4. Good luck finding people who are willing to serve on a separately elected council that only exists to decide hard FOs and the like. It's a thankless job. Saying it comes with the turf for AB and TAG makes some sense.

@TzviyaSiegman
Copy link

Contentious working groups manage with a membership quite a bit larger than 22.

I think this Council will need to work differently than a WG, ideally very quickly and with decisive action.

Part of the credibility is that indeed there are enough people to represent a diversity of opinion, and that it's both the AB (notionally process and procedure and operations experts) and TAG (notional technology and architecture experts). I would be strongly opposed to both the overhead of a separate election, and to having 'too small' a group.

If we create a process that selects representatives of AB+TAG that reflect this diversity and relevant expertise, I think we are still safe. A group of 5 (for example) can still be diverse. I don't think we ought to rely on random selection but on a combination of expertise in the relevant area, availability, and striving for good representation. We will need to flesh out exactly what the makeup of each council should be,

Good luck finding people who are willing to serve on a separately elected council that only exists to decide hard FOs and the like. It's a thankless job. Saying it comes with the turf for AB and TAG makes some sense.

+1 I don't think it's a good idea to set up a unique body that is devoted to resolving FOs.

@mnot
Copy link
Member

mnot commented Aug 9, 2019

I agree that a separate body is not a good idea here. Still, I wonder if it's useful to have the entire body rule on everything; do we really want the AB ruling on technical matters, or the TAG ruling on process matters?

Would it be possible to designate a FO as 'process' or 'technical', and have the appropriate body weigh in?

Failing that, could we create a norm that when a FO doesn't relate to your general area of authority, you abstain?

An aside --
It would be especially unfortunate if a company that had a strong opinion on a matter had a representative on both the AB and TAG; that could undermine the legitimacy of the process. Should there by guidance on recusal in this situation?

@frivoal
Copy link
Collaborator

frivoal commented Aug 10, 2019

do we really want the AB ruling on technical matters, or the TAG ruling on process matters?

When discussing this in the AB, we concluded that many "interesting" Formal Objections had components of both technical and non-technical matters, making joint deliberation important.
We do expect that on primarily technical questions, the Council will primarily heed the advice of its TAG members, and that of its AB members for primarily non-technical objections.

But since drawing a strict distinction over which is which, that is better dealt with with guidelines and best practices than hard rules in the Process.

@dwsinger
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think and hope that the council will delegate small groups to do research and come back with analysis and recommendation. I think it makes sense for the whole AB+TAG to 'double check' their work and that the Decision is issued with the consent of all of them.

I think your aside is probably more significant; indeed, should we require that there is only one vote per member on the council, in the case that a member has more than one representative on the Council? (This might happen due to AB+TAG or in the relaxation of TAG rules over change of affiliation).

@frivoal frivoal modified the milestones: Deferred, Director-free Mar 11, 2020
@frivoal frivoal added Director-free: FO/Council Issues realted to the W3C Council and Formal Objection Handling and removed director-free labels Jul 1, 2020
@frivoal frivoal modified the milestones: Director-free, Deferred Jul 1, 2020
@dwsinger dwsinger added the Director-free (all) All issues & pull request related to director-free. See also the topic-branch label Jul 26, 2021
@frivoal frivoal added the Closed: Accepted The issue has been addressed, though not necessarily based on the initial suggestion label Sep 22, 2022
@frivoal frivoal modified the milestones: Deferred, Process 2022 Sep 22, 2022
@frivoal
Copy link
Collaborator

frivoal commented Sep 22, 2022

This issue is no longer current, and has been addressed already. See https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/director-free/#council-composition

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Closed: Accepted The issue has been addressed, though not necessarily based on the initial suggestion Director-free (all) All issues & pull request related to director-free. See also the topic-branch Director-free: FO/Council Issues realted to the W3C Council and Formal Objection Handling
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants