search

w3c / process

W3C Process Document
https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/
198 stars 130 forks source link

Allow Tim Berners-Lee to abstain in Unanimous Short Circuit votes #793

Closed frivoal closed 1 month ago

frivoal commented 1 year ago

This removes him from the being on critical path for the Council's Unanimous Short Circuit votes, without affecting any other role he has as a TAG and Council member.

This is one possible solution to #784, with #791 and #792 being alternatives.

:boom: Error: 400 Bad Request :boom:

PR Preview failed to build. (Last tried on Aug 7, 2024, 6:13 PM UTC).

More PR Preview relies on a number of web services to run. There seems to be an issue with the following one: :rotating_light: [CSS Spec Preprocessor](https://api.csswg.org/bikeshed/) - CSS Spec Preprocessor is the web service used to build Bikeshed specs. :link: [Related URL]([object Object]) ``` Error running preprocessor, returned code: 2. Your document appears to use tabs to indent, but line 2540 starts with spaces. FATAL ERROR: Line 2540 isn't indented enough (needs 2 indents) to be valid Markdown: " (in addition, Tim Berners-Lee <em bs-line-number=2540 class="rfc2119">may</em> also abstain)" LINK ERROR: No 'dfn' refs found for 'advisory committee override'. [=Advisory Committee Override=] ✘ Did not generate, due to errors exceeding the allowed error level. ``` _If you don't have enough information above to solve the error by yourself (or to understand to which web service the error is related to, if any), please [file an issue](https://github.com/tobie/pr-preview/issues/new?title=Error%20not%20surfaced%20properly&body=See%20w3c/process%23793.)._
frivoal commented 9 months ago

I guess that's the risk when you let a French speaker word things :) The French meaning of abstain is "omit to vote", while voting an explicit non-opinion would be called something like "voting blank". Now that I know English is different, I support @tantek 's proposed rephrasing.

frivoal commented 4 months ago

I suspect that this PR no longer serves a useful purpose given that https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/885 has been adopted. #791 or #792 may remain of interest, but I think we can close this one. Agenda+ to confirm.

frivoal commented 3 months ago

A few recent rephrasing suggestions no longer makes sense, since the underlying text has been changed by #885. I have rebased on top of the newest text, and included a simple provision that achieves the same effect. Feel free to propose improved rephrasings if you think that is useful, but personnaly, I don't seen the point: we are now allowing up to 20% of the council to abstain. Tim Berners-Lee can be part of these 20%. Regardless of phrasing, I don't find it useful to say that 20% may abstain if Timbl is among those who vote, but 20% + 1 person may abstain if Timbl is among those who abstain. That seems complicated for no good reason.

Therefore, my preference would be to close this as overtaken by events (https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/791, https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/792 remain relevant). But if others see value in this, I have no objection to finding better phrasing.

frivoal commented 1 month ago

I consider this PR of mine to have become moot since https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/885 has been accepted. When everybody had to affirmatively vote in the short circuits, making an exception for Timbl could make some amount of sense. Now that we do allow for a small number of abstentions anyway, allowing for slightly more abstentions if timbl is part of the people abstaining is unnecessarily convoluted, and brings no clear value. Other open question about his role in the council and tag may valid to discuss, but I am no longer pursuing this particular change.