TAG appointment ambiguity about ratification by both AB and TAG

[frivoal]

https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#TAG-appointments has this sentence:

The Team's choice of appointee(s) is subject to ratification by secret ballot by both the AB and the TAG, each requiring a two-thirds approval.

There was some confusions as to what "each" means, the two possible alternative being:

• each appointee must reach 2/3 approval (of the TAG+AB counted as one body)
• the TAG and AB must each separately reach a 2/3 approval threshold for the appointment to be ratified.

Based on the issue and commit that introduced this (https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/715 and https://github.com/w3c/w3process/commit/bcc08778105583c1cd8302db14e4af107b51d7c4), I think it is clear that the second meaning is intended.

We should clarify that to avoid confusion.

[martinthomson]

The Team's choice of appointee(s) is subject to ratification by secret ballot by both the AB and the TAG, each requiring a two-thirds approval.

The word "each" here implies distribution of the statement following to multiple items in the preceding text.

I see four interpretations:

1. The approval needs to reach two thirds of the ballot for each appointee.
2. The approval needs to reach two thirds of the ballot for each ratifying body.
3. The approval needs to reach two thirds of the sitting members for each appointee.
4. The approval needs to reach two thirds of the sitting members for each ratifying body.

This issue covers one point of distribution here. There, the question is whether the "each" applies to the bodies (TAG and AB) rather than the appointees. I think that points to option 4, but this could be clearer still.

[frivoal]

For the "of the ballot vs of the ratifying body" question, see also https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/838

[TallTed]

Oh dear. There are additional interpretations. I don't think the intent has ever been for such approval votes as these to cover a roster of appointees (as interpretations 2 and 4 above imply), but rather to be held for each appointee (no matter their number).

5. The approval needs to reach two thirds of the ballot of each ratifying body for each appointee.
6. The approval needs to reach two thirds of the sitting members of each ratifying body for each appointee.

I think these are the live possibilities for this particular text segment. I don't think the 4 above are viable nor what was intended.

My sense is that ballot is how the existing text has been read, but it is entirely possible that sitting members was the original intent. I could probably be convinced either way by folks who have a longer history of working on these documents.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Ambiguity of "each" for TAG appointment ratifications, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Change "each" to "from each" as described above, and ask if anyone can find an ambiguity in it

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Subtopic: Ambiguity of "each" for TAG appointment ratifications
<fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/836
<fantasai> florian: There are multiple ambiguities around this text
<fantasai> ... this is attempting to address one of them
<fantasai> ... the sentence that says [quote]
<fantasai> ... Some people think that each appointee needs to get the approval
<fantasai> ... other intepretation is each body (AB vs TAG) needs to get 2/3 approval
<cwilso> +1
<fantasai> ... when we review the origin of the text, intention is definitely the latter
<TallTed> q+
<cwilso> q+
<plh> ack ta
<fantasai> florian: Ratifying independently or jointly is also interesting, but trying to clarify the bodies ratifying separately
<fantasai> TallTed: Not sure it'll be solved in pieaces
<fantasai> s/pieaces/pieces/
<fantasai> TallTed: also fantasai proposed a shorter rewording even that I did, and mine was rejected for being too short
<fantasai> florian: only OK if it's *clearly* unambiguous
<fantasai> florian: Wrt additional questions, here our intent was clear. Wrt the other questions, I'm not so sure whether our intent was clear
<fantasai> ... matter of debate what we want, so harder question
<plh> ack cw
<fantasai> plh: [reviews edits]
<fantasai> fantasai: "from each" is enough, the groups are implied by the sentence construction
<fantasai> cwilso: original I thought was unambiguous, but it wasn't
<fantasai> florian: fantasai's is different though, "from each" ... can't see how it could apply to the candidates
<fantasai> florian: I think all the wordings are fine, just how in-your-face you want to be
<cwilso> q+
<plh> ack cw
<fantasai> fantasai: I prefer not using excessive words, so prefer to take the shorter text and ask the people who were confused if it's clear yet
<fantasai> cwilso: I think we should revisit later as we discuss
<fantasai> florian: I agree we may need to revisit, but one step at a time is good
<tzviya> +1 to wait
<fantasai> fantasai: My proposal is to accept "from each" unless someone here can create a wrong interpretation
<tzviya> q+
<fantasai> ... and go back to Dan and Martin &co to ask if they find it unambiguous
<plh> ack tz
<fantasai> cwilso: I'm not a -1, but not a +1.
<fantasai> tzviya: I'm with cwilso, not sure it's worth doing a minor edit now
<fantasai> florian: I would prefer to make an edit, if only to reduce the scope of ambiguities we need to deal with later
<fantasai> ... if we have to change it again, we change it again
<fantasai> ... my preference is different from Elika's but not fighting
<fantasai> plh: Any objections to go with Elika's proposal?
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Change "each" to "from each" as described above, and ask if anyone can find an ambiguity in it

[frivoal]

Made the proposed change, and pinged the TAG about it.

[torgo]

I agree this is less ambiguous. However, I think it's also less desirable. To be clear, I think the "each" should apply to each prospective appointee rather than within each group - though I recognise (now) that this isn't what the Process CG had in mind.

[TallTed]

RESOLVED: Change "each" to "from each" as described above, and ask if anyone can find an ambiguity in it

Yes. There is remaining ambiguity. I think either of the changes represented below (I prefer the first) would resolve what remains and represents original intent.

        The [=Team=]'s choice of appointee(s) Each appointee chosen by the [=Team=] is subject to ratification by secret ballot by both the [=AB=] and the [=TAG=], requiring a two-thirds approval from each.

or The [=Team=]'s choice of appointee(s)         is subject to ratification by secret ballot         is subject to ratification of each appointee by secret ballot by both the [=AB=] and the [=TAG=], requiring a two-thirds approval from each.

[cwilso]

To be clear, when we (process cg) first developed this process, my clear recollection of the intent was to ratify as a whole, not individual appointees. The idea was essentially that the Team would work with the TAG to understand the missing expertise and agree on appointees, then have the whole ratified.

[TallTed]

@cwilso — OK. Presuming that your recollection is confirmed, then this version removes the same ambiguity —

        The [=Team=]'s choice of appointee(s) as a whole is subject to ratification by secret ballot by both the [=AB=] and the [=TAG=], requiring a two-thirds approval from each.

[frivoal]

I'd prefer to have a separate issue about whether appointees should be confirmed individually or as a set, so that we can discuss the pros and cons about that prior to discussing the phrasing.

[martinthomson]

Suggestion:

The Teams choice of appointee(s) is ratified separately by the TAG and by the AB. The Team is required to run a secret ballot with each group, which passes if two thirds of the group (rounded up) approve.

Note that this addresses two concerns:

1. TAG and AB separately or together.
2. Whether the threshold is sitting members or ballots.

The third concern, whether each appointee is individual affirmed, is not addressed. I personally have no opinion on that matter, though I might prefer to leave the decision to the Team as to whether the ratification is batched or per-appointee. (Once resolved, I would ask that a sentence be added to memorialize that decision. But that can happen later.)

[TallTed]

@frivoal — I'm fine with splitting out the questions of individual vs group confirmation, and of sitting members vs ballot casters. My comments since https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/836#issuecomment-2022906227 were based on —

ask if anyone can find an ambiguity in it

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Disambiguate "each" in TAG appointment ratification, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Merge PR 837 to clarify "each"

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Subtopic: Disambiguate "each" in TAG appointment ratification
<fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/836
<fantasai> -> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/837
<fantasai> florian: Clarified that original intent was AB and TAG separately ratify
<fantasai> ... we wanted to clarify in the Process to avoid confusion on that point
<fantasai> ... there's also some other questions about TAG appointments, but to answer narrow question of clarifying this original intent
<fantasai> ... this phrasing seems to work, so let's merge it and keep discussing the rest separately
<fantasai> plh: sgtm
<fantasai> <fantasai> +1
<fantasai> plh: objections?
<cpn> +1
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR 837 to clarify "each"

[frivoal]

This narrow issue about ambiguity of phrasing is now closed through merging https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/837. The broader discussion of TAG appointments remains open in https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/809, https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/810, https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/811