Speed of resolving formal objections for new charters

[jeffjaffe]

At a recent AB meeting in which we looked at formal objections (https://www.w3.org/2021/04/15-ab-minutes.html#t03) the issue of the speed of resolving formal objections for new charters came up; specifically in the director-free time frame.

The background is that when there is a charter for a new topic that arises (in the referenced case it was for Web Machine Learning), it usually arises after major progress in a Community Group or in a Workshop where a brand new community is ready to move rapidly on some new technology. But the new charter must be ratified by the AC and anyone can object. We have techniques (such as sending out advanced notices) to reduce the likelihood of objection - but objection is still possible.

As we move forward with some director-free solution we must make sure it is agile to be able to deal with such objections rapidly but fairly.

(Apologies to those that do not have Member access to the above listed AB minutes, but I believe that the issue can be understood without looking at those minutes.)

[mnot]

This seems related to the issue(s) around using CGs for incubation.

I think it's reasonable to have a somewhat streamlined process for handling objections (while still doing so properly, of course) for things that originate in workshops, because workshops are advertised throughout the community, and are themselves a substantial way for members (and others) to give input.

CGs and BGs, on the other hand, lack such wide advertisement. There are simply too many to track, and the bargain that they imply is that it's safe to ignore what happens in them, because any "real" changes to the web will need to go through the process.

So, if a charter comes from a CG to the whole community, I'd expect it to be treated as if it were fresh to everyone; even though a subset of the community may have been quite active in its generation, that was effectively a private effort (despite being 'open', the lack of standing that CGs have combined with their very loose rules around decision-making make them effectively private).

[cwilso]

Actually, in the discussion, we were not connecting this to incubation at all; the discussion we had in the AB was largely around "we should set an expectation of resolution timeframe", but not "we should fast-track some things". (FWIW, I would prefer not to have a separate fast-track.) I strongly disagree with your "CGs are made effectively private" characterization, but we can discuss that elsewhere.

…

On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 7:49 PM Mark Nottingham ***@***.***> wrote: This seems related to the issue(s) around using CGs for incubation. I think it's reasonable to have a somewhat streamlined process for handling objections (while still doing so properly, of course) for things that originate in workshops, because workshops are advertised throughout the community, and are themselves a substantial way for members (and others) to give input. CGs and BGs, on the other hand, lack such wide advertisement. There are simply too many to track, and the bargain that they imply is that it's safe to ignore what happens in them, because any "real" changes to the web will need to go through the process. So, if a charter comes from a CG to the whole community, I'd expect it to be treated as if it were fresh to everyone; even though a subset of the community may have been quite active in its generation, that was effectively a private effort (despite being 'open', the lack of standing that CGs have combined with their *very* loose rules around decision-making make them effectively private). — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#523 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAD3Y6L4DSX5BIXZ5RMBYKLTLYFLXANCNFSM43V4QTKA> .

[samuelweiler]

A solution might include part of #328 (comment)

[frivoal]

The council has been slow so far, but it has mostly been about discovering and getting used to the steps needed to convene a council, rather than with the actual deliberations. Moreover, the current branch puts deadlines on the various phases of FO processing, so I think we should be fine. Proposing to close.

[chaals]

There is no deadline between the 90-day "initiate the formation" and the council starting to work.

What does "initiate the council" mean? an internal mail saying "we'll need a council"? A required notification to the AC that a council is being convened and the dismissal/renunciation process has begun?

I think this needs work still.

[frivoal]

@chaals Sorry, I have pushed a few less commits that I thought I did. You should have another look, the now-update branch has tightened language in that area.

[frivoal]

Agreed to close in the 2022/10/28 Process-CG meeting.