Include Membership input ahead of MoU decision

[dontcallmedom]

The current Process delegates full authority to the Director in making decision to sign Memoranda of Understanding; the only option for the Membership to disagree is through the appeal process. In particular, the process doesn't call for any prior engagement from the Team with the Membership prior to signing such an MoU.

As we're moving towards Director-free, and given recent experience where the Membership has indicated interest in greater involvement in these discussions, the Process should probably consider whether having a required advance notice or even a formal AC Review before reaching such a decision would satisfy this need.

[OR13]

I'm in favor of AC (Member) review, I worry about relying on Director / AB / TAG review.

I think the AC needs to be held more accountable, and allowing the other authorities to speak for them could easily land us right back where we are today, with appeals to decisions that should have been made by members first, and then approved / rejected / communicated by W3C leadership.

[frivoal]

AC reviews for MoUs seems appropriate to me.

[dwsinger]

Indeed, it would have been good if the earlier decision that this was "just another MoU" had been surfaced to the AC, as it's not obvious that joining an org. is

[npdoty]

+1 for advance notice.

Formal AC review seems good too, if we think there will be a substantial fraction of members which will review/vote, but if we'll just add another vote that isn't getting much response, then that could be an indicator that the actual decision making is better delegated to staff (as long as there's notice).

[plehegar]

My understanding is that some MoUs might be under embargo, so it may not be possible to give even more advance notices other than the already AC review one. If that's correct, then it may be that, for those, we'd need to go to a more restricted set, eg BoD/AB/TAG.

[jeffjaffe]

I'm not convinced that the embargo argument is compelling. In the past, sooner or later, we have always gone to the Membership. It is true that getting Membership input ahead of MoU decisions could add a few more weeks, but no more than that. I can't recall a case where this would have been a problem.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed AC review of MOUs.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> subtopic: AC review of MOUs
<fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/606
<plh> fantasai: suggestion for advance notice, formal AC review
<florian> q+
<plh> florian: I suspect that MoUs are similar to contracts, so it's up to the board
<plh> ... we can't put must in the process, but we can put should
<plh> ... I don't think the AC can force the board to sign an MoU
<plh> ... but allowing the AC to raise concerns is a good thing
<plh> ... so prefer "advance notice"
<plh> plh: don't we have that today?
<plh> florian: today is the Director intends to sign it
<plh> ... difference is to ask for feedback before making a decision
<dsinger> +1 to 'considering'. But Fl is right, this is about to be a Board question
<plh> fantasai: we recommend that ACs be notified that MoUs are being considered so that they can provide their input
<plh> [straw poll]
<fantasai> +1
<florian> +1
<dsinger> +1
<plh> <plh> +1
<TallTed> +1
<wseltzer> 0
<cwilso> +1
<plh> Resolved: advance notice for MoUs
<plh> ACTION: florian to draft a pull request for MoU advance notices

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Advance Notice for MOUs, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Merge in 2 weeks if no concerns found

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Subtopic: Advance Notice for MOUs
<fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/606
<fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/619
<plh> fantasai: we have a proposal
<plh> florian: there was no requirement for the team to put a notice.
<plh> ... also incidentally inclusion of AC reviews
<dsinger> q+
<plh> dsinger: the old text was linking to AC review
<plh> florian: that was a mistake
<plh> ... but we did not want to have an AC review
<fantasai> plh: This talks about providing a draft for the AC to review, but isn't an "AC Review"
<fantasai> fantasai: Let's take a straw poll
<fantasai> fantasai: happy to leave it open for 2 weeks, but wanted to see what ppl on this call think
<fantasai> plh: timing of review period?
<plh> florian: that was deliberate. the AC can appeal decisions
<fantasai> ... we expect the Team to do something reasonable
<plh> ... the team will have to be reasonable
<florian> s/reasonable/reasonable, and the appeal can be used if not/
<plh> fantasai: ok, we'll propose to merge in 2 weeks
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge in 2 weeks if no concerns found
<plh> fantasai: we'll merge after the call