Improving the definition of consensus #635
Conversation
| @@ -2277,6 +2285,10 @@ Start of a Review Period</h4> | |||
| Each Member organization <em class="rfc2119">may</em> send one review, | |||
| which <em class="rfc2119">must</em> be returned by its [=Advisory Committee representative=]. | |||
|
|
|||
| For clarity, | |||
| in the context of an [=AC Review=], | |||
| [=dissent=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> be expressed as a [=Formal Objection=]. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| [=dissent=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> be expressed as a [=Formal Objection=]. | |
| [=dissent=] <em class=rfc2119>may</em> be expressed as a [=Formal Objection=]. |
There are options in the standard review forms we use to say "I disagree but ths is not a formal objection", which I think is appropriate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, it is, but that's not dissent in our formal definition, it's mere disagreement. Dissent is the presence of one or more FOs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm confused, maybe due to the difficult of seeing the preview. I read "A [=Formal Objection=] always indicates sustained disagreement, but isn't necessary to express [=dissent=]." So, is dissent a sign of the presence of one or more FOs?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In some contexts, Dissent can only be expressed as an FO (AC Review). But in a WG, if the chair is trying to assess consensus, they can ask the something vaguely like "do we have any sustained objections to this proposed decision?" and if there is, they shouldn't (can't?) declare consensus. The member doesn't need (shouldn't) file an FO from the room in a hurry.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"A [=Formal Objection=] always indicates sustained disagreement, but isn't necessary to express [=dissent=]."
The presence of "sustained disagreement" and "dissent" are the same, so using different words here might have been confusing. I think we should rephrase as
"A [=Formal Objection=] always indicates sustained disagreement, but isn't necessary to express it."
"sustained objection" = "I insist I cannot agree to this, and therefore, because of that disagreement, we do not have consensus."
"Formal objection" = "sustained objection + I want kick off the council process"
(Note: As per https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#managing-dissent, even if there is not consensus, the chair can still record decisions (possibly by taking a vote), so we're not stuck.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes. "isn't necessary to express it in all circumstances"? or flip it and "and is the only way to express sustained disagreement in some (formal) contexts, such as AC votes"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with taking @dwsinger's suggested rephrasing.
frivoal
force-pushed
the
better-consensus
branch
from
3905972
to
1cb4db2
Compare
| @@ -2020,9 +2020,16 @@ Consensus</h4> | |||
|
|
|||
| <dt><dfn id="def-Dissent">Dissent</dfn>: | |||
| <dd> | |||
| At least one individual in the set registers a <a href="#FormalObjection">Formal Objection</a>. | |||
| At least one individual in the set sustains an objection. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we're missing a class here. I agree with comments made elsewhere that there can be dissent by disagreement that is not escalated to Objection level.
To make this more concrete, consider that a WG is faced with two competing proposals to resolve the same issue. There are no objections to either, but there is also a split of preferences amongst members. The Chair may reasonably assert a Decision that is the choice with the least negative preference, i.e. dissent.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi. I think you may be missing that we have a difference of definition in the process between mere disagreement, and dissent (which is an FO or equivalent). Maybe this suggests we should use "sustained dissent" instead of plain "dissent"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Bit puzzled about this @dwsinger. Disagreement isn't a defined term in the Process. The only relevant reference I can find is in §5. Decisions where individuals are encouraged (SHOULD) to register an FO if they disagree strongly with a decision (my emphasis).
This recommendation actually seems like an anti-pattern, since the goal is to resolve strong disagreements before they need to be escalated to an FO. Maybe we need a more nuanced section about handling disagreements as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
disagreement doesn't need defining in the process, it has its usual meaning. Dissent is formally defined, however, to be an FO or its equivalent. So in the Process, not all disagreement is Dissent. As I say, we might make this clearer by using the phrase "sustained dissent".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see any problem using "sustained dissent", but I fear there's a logical problem with saying that disagreement has its usual meaning, and then also saying that disagreement excludes (sustained) dissent. If it's important that the two categories are mutually exclusive then we would have to define "disagreement" more explicitly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd rather not rename the concept of “dissent” in the Process. This pull request is about making its definition (and consequently the definition of “consensus”) more broadly applicable than just to REC-track documents. If we want to rename concepts, that should be a separate issue...
|
The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed The full IRC log of that discussion<fantasai> Subtopic: Improving definition of consensus<fantasai> github: https://github.com//pull/635 <plh> fantasai: consensus was focused around formal objection <plh> ... didn't work in a more broader way, like for the council <plh> ... so we tried to improve this definition <plh> florian: primary reason is indeed due to the council. <plh> ... can't file formal objections against the council <plh> ... also the definition was borken. you can object to a decision <plh> ... but, in the absence of decision, that doesn't mean there is consensus <TallTed> s/borken/broken/ <plh> florian: Chairs are empowered to move forward in the absence of consensus <jeff> q+ <plh> ack je <plh> jeff: nice piece of work. <plh> ... for AC polls, we introduced terminilogy like objection but not formal objection <plh> ... ie express strong disagreement without holding up the work <plh> .... which of the terminology for AC polls, ie express objections but not formal <plh> florian: you can say you disagree <plh> ... you can substain your objection, but not formally object <plh> jeff: the intent here was that you didn't want to stop the work <plh> ... but you expressed strong feelings <plh> florian: that would be disagreement <plh> jeff: ie we can change to use the term "disagreement" <plh> florian: we didn't mean to introduce new terminology but yes, it would be appropriate <plh> jeff: that would be enhancement for the AC polls <fantasai> plh: I can take an action item to look into that <fantasai> plh: proposing revised wording for AC polls <plh> tzviya: changing the wording is not a good idea in AC polls <plh> fantasai: proposal is to take the pull request and let others figure out how/when to apply it outside of the process <plh> fantasai: any comment or reservation? <plh> Resolved: merge https://github.com//pull/635 |
frivoal
added
Closed: Accepted
frivoal
added
Commenter satisfied/accepting
See #634
Preview | Diff