css-meeting-bot
commented
2 weeks ago The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Deal with procedural disagreements within the Council, and agreed to the following:
RESOLVED: Put something in the Guide
The full IRC log of that discussion
<fantasai> Subtopic: Deal with procedural disagreements within the Council<fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/843
<fantasai> florian: This has happened once. I was chair of a Council, where Council could not agree about what it was allowed to do.
<fantasai> ... disagreement wasn't about the merits of the case, but whether we were allowed to rule on the question
<fantasai> ... as a chair I had no way to resolve, and no one to appeal to
<fantasai> ... if we all agree after some discussion, it's fine
<fantasai> ... but if we can't find consensus about what we're allowed to do, then what?
<plh> q+
<fantasai> florian: Proposal is to have the council vote on this, and then write it down as part of the decision, and AC can appeal if necessary
<fantasai> ... could do without writing into the Process, but [missed]
<fantasai> ... luckily in that Council we found a workaround
<cwilso> -1 to Florian being a bad Council chair. :)
<fantasai> plh: One thing is what do we do in this case. Other is where do we document it.
<fantasai> ... in a WG, when there's disagreement about the Process, the chairs turn to the Team and ask Team to interpret the process
<fantasai> ... the Team is tasked to provide interpretation of the Process, which allows us to move forward when Process is not clear etc.
<fantasai> ... if you disagree with the Team, we say raise an issue against Process
<fantasai> ... We do this all the time; the Team interpets the Process.
<florian> s/but [missed]/but when it happened to me as a chair of the council, I failed to unlock the situation without a rule to base that resolution on
<fantasai> ... sometimes we even disagree with the Process editors, but we discuss and find a consensus
<fantasai> plh: The Team doesn't really participate in the Council. Have a Team Contact, though, so can ask the Team Contact to provide an interpretation. Could have a discussion, but can do the same.
<fantasai> ... other solution is to have a vote to resolve the matter
<fantasai> ... my worry is consistency among the councils
<fantasai> florian: Required to write it down, so at least precedence is documented
<fantasai> plh: Those are the two paths. I suggest instead of documenting in Process, document in Guidebook
<plh> ack plh
<plh> ack fantasai
<plh> fantasai: having the Team making the call makes more sense than doing a vote in the Council
<plh> ... will give more flexibility
<plh> ... and we should document in the guidebook
<florian> q+
<fantasai> plh: Team would be having a conversation, not just making a decision.
<plh> ack florian
<fantasai> ... and will likely end up in Process or Guidebook issue, to document the question better
<fantasai> florian: I'm unconvinced that asking the Team will help
<fantasai> ... but what if some members of the Council don't accept the Team's advice?
<fantasai> ... However putting it in the Guide is a reasonable place to start.
<plh> q+
<fantasai> ... Not certain it provides enough gravitas, but might.
<fantasai> ... if disagreements, then chair can decide what to do
<fantasai> ... but either way, should document in the report
<fantasai> ... But anyway, put it in the guide so it's not the chair making things up seems reasonable
<fantasai> plh: Regarding the Team, can only involve if it's about interpreting the Process.
<fantasai> ... as it applies to operations of the Council.
<fantasai> ... if it's about the material of the FO itself, then that's different
<fantasai> florian: Example is, FO against a decision. If you sustain the decision, it undoes the decision.
<fantasai> ... but might not be clarity on what the decision is, or what the consequences of upholding vs overturning the FO means
<fantasai> ... Council has a limited scope in what it can do
<fantasai> plh: Maybe Team is not seen as sufficiently neutral in some of these cases.
<fantasai> fantasai: I think the Team and the chair together would be sufficient for resolving questions about interpretations of the Process
<fantasai> plh: I would be OK with putting Team in the guidebook. Can make a recommendation to the Chair, and then it's a Chair Decision.
<fantasai> florian: Yes, let's just document that this is something you can decide about, and if you do mention it in the report
<fantasai> plh: Yeah, let's document this in the Guide
<fantasai> [dicussions about drafting Guide stuff]
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Put something in the Guide
frivoal
While discussing a case, if there are disagreement within the Council about the Process that governs the Council and the processing of formal objections, how do we move forward?
This is not about disagreement about the substance of the case at hand, as this is already handled (“However, if despite careful deliberation a W3C Council is unable to reach consensus, the W3C Council Chair may instead resort to voting”). This is about the rules that apply to the Council itself: “aren't we required to …?”, “Isn't this out of scope for us?”, “Do we even have the ability to …?”, etc.
There isn't clearly any higher authority to escalate to, and besides, the deliberations of the council being confidential, it's hard to go ask someone about something you cannot discuss.
Hopefully, the Process doesn't have that many ambiguities, and we don't run into such a case too often, but we need an escape valve to avoid a situation where the Council is stuck but because it cannot agree on what it can do.
I can think of a few variants, but the one that makes the most sense to me is: a) The chair can propose a vote to resolve any such disagreement, which passes if there are more ballots for than against (chair breaks ties?). b) The nature of the disagreement, vote totals, and resulting decision must be included in the Council report. c) If the AC is unhappy with the outcome of the Council, including because it thinks the Council got it wrong about this procedural disagreement, AC Appeal may be used to overturn the Council's decision (no need for a new rule for this point, this is already available).