Improving the definition of consensus #635
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -2007,7 +2007,7 @@ Consensus</h4> | |||||
| <dd> | ||||||
| A substantial number of individuals in the set | ||||||
| support the decision | ||||||
| and there is no sustained objection from anybody in the set. | ||||||
| Individuals in the set <em class="rfc2119">may</em> abstain. | ||||||
| Abstention is either an explicit expression of no opinion | ||||||
| or silence by an individual in the set. | ||||||
|
|
@@ -2020,9 +2020,16 @@ Consensus</h4> | |||||
|
|
||||||
| <dt><dfn id="def-Dissent">Dissent</dfn>: | ||||||
| <dd> | ||||||
| At least one individual in the set sustains an objection. | ||||||
| </dl> | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| Note: A [=Formal Objection=] always indicates sustained disagreement, | ||||||
| but isn't necessary to express [=dissent=]. | ||||||
| Disagreement with a proposed decision, | ||||||
| however, does not always rise to the level of sustained objection, | ||||||
| as individuals could be willing to accept a decision | ||||||
| while expressing disagreement. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| By default, the set of individuals eligible to participate in a decision is the set of group participants. | ||||||
| The Process Document does not require a quorum for decisions | ||||||
| (i.e., the minimal number of eligible participants required to be present before the Chair can call a question). | ||||||
|
|
@@ -2066,7 +2073,6 @@ Managing Dissent</h4> | |||||
| In some cases, even after careful consideration of all points of view, | ||||||
| a group might find itself unable to reach consensus. | ||||||
| The [=Chair=] <em class="rfc2119">may</em> record a decision where there is [=dissent=] | ||||||
| so that the group can make progress | ||||||
| (for example, to produce a deliverable in a timely manner). | ||||||
| Dissenters cannot stop a group's work | ||||||
|
|
@@ -2083,6 +2089,8 @@ Managing Dissent</h4> | |||||
| (or <a href="#MemberRelated">related</a>) | ||||||
| Member organizations and weigh their input accordingly. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| Note: Dissenters can escalate their sustained objection to a decision by registering a [=Formal Objection=]. | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| <h4 id="Votes"> | ||||||
| Deciding by Vote</h4> | ||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@@ -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.
Suggested change
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.
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
"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. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
| The Team <em class="rfc2119">must</em> provide two channels for Advisory Committee review comments: | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| <ol> | ||||||
|
|
||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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...