Closed frivoal closed 2 months ago
For (1), Upon appointment, the Chair(s) are subject to ratification by secret ballot, requiring approval by two thirds of the elected participants.
For completion, here's the other options:
Upon appointment, the Chair(s) are subject to ratification by secret ballot, requiring approval by two thirds of the elected AB participants.
Upon appointment, the Chair(s) are subject to ratification by secret ballot, requiring approval by two thirds of the elected participants of the AB.
For (3), each dismissal is decided by simple majority of those voicing a preference
The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Clarifying supermajority votes
, and agreed to the following:
RESOLVED: Accept Ted's proposal in https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/838#issuecomment-2022931990
For all votes where abstention (no vote) and/or explicit-neither-yes-nor-no (vote submitted with voiced no preference) is ignored, probably need to be explicit about this ignoring.
Landed a commit directly for case 1, since we had a resolution with explicit phrasing, and made a PR for case 3 as well as one for case 4.
The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Disambiguate vote thresholds
, and agreed to the following:
RESOLVED: Merge PR 841
RESOLVED: Merge PR 842
RESOLVED: Close issue 838, open separate issue wrt TAG appointment
Sub-issues 1, 3, and 4 have been addressed. 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. Relevant parts of this discussion have been reported into https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/809#issuecomment-2076343397.
There are a few couple of places in the Process which define a decision as being made by a majority or a super majority, without being clear about whether we consider the (super) majority of those who did vote, or of those who were eligible to vote regardless of whether they did. Some are also ambiguous about whether we how we count explicit "abstain" votes. We should disambiguate. The appropriate answer might differ case by case, and we might need to split this issue if some of these points turn out to be contentious, but here's a first pass at it.
https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#ABParticipation:
I think the intent is two thirds or more of those eligible to vote (i.e., AB elected participants). Clarification might not be completely necessary here, but we could go with
to make sure there is absolutely no doubt.
https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#TAG-appointments
This is the one I am least sure about. I'm tempted to go with ratification failing if 1/3 or more of those eligible to vote explicitly vote against.
https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#council-participation
I used to think this was not ambiguous, because I thought that "abstaining" meant "not participating in a vote", but I have been told that native English speakers take it to mean "explicitly decline to take sides". I think we should go with
https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#council-deliberations
Suggestion:
Note: Here are other cases of majority or super majority, which in my view, are already non ambiguous.
https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#council-delegation
https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#ABParticipation and https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#tag-participation