Make it clear than any decision can be objected to #299
Conversation
|
are we 100% sure that the list is comprehensive? If not, I'd suggest "Formal Objections can be registered and against formal decision, including those of…" |
|
That's what I start with, then realized that "formal decision" wasn't defined, so I preferred to expand the definition in place. We should indeed double check, and if anything is missing, add it there. But I think it's correct. |
|
CEO decisions might include things that are nothing to do with the membership ("I decided to install a water cooler in the offices"). Hm. |
|
punting on this, as we're working on formal objections as part of the director-free process, and that Tackling FOs from multiple angles at the same time isn't the best approach. |
frivoal
force-pushed
the
object-to-anything
branch
from
7fb02e6
to
20b1436
Compare
frivoal
force-pushed
the
object-to-anything
branch
from
20b1436
to
64e5bfa
Compare
|
The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed The full IRC log of that discussion<fantasai> Topic: �Make it clear than any decision can be objected to<fantasai> github: https://github.com//pull/299 <fantasai> florian: Not clear atm what can be objected to <fantasai> florian: this makes it clear that any decision described in the process can be objected to, unless specifically handled otherwise (e.g. AC Appeal) <dsinger> q? <fantasai> florian: issue was raised in context of Director-Free, but not really coupled to it <fantasai> dsinger: I've read it, and I'm ok with it <fantasai> fantasai: lgtm <jeff> q+ <dsinger> ack jeff <fantasai> jeff: Seems to be history that ties this back to chair appointments, #281 <tink> LGTM <fantasai> jeff: today, a chair has to be appointed, even a simple appointment like a chair retired from their company and wants to continue as Invited Expert <fantasai> jeff: How would that work here? Is that a decision that can be objected to? <fantasai> florian: Yes <fantasai> jeff: So we propose to AC we're going to make a decision <fantasai> jeff: then AC can say we don't think that's good, we need to bring to Director or to Council that this is a mistake? <fantasai> florian: No, not a suggestion that there shoudl be an AC review <fantasai> florian: Just says that any decision that *has* happened can be objected to <jeff> Now, I understand. -1. <fantasai> florian: Not really new, but implied, so trying to make it clearer <fantasai> florian: Given it's supposed to be a clarification, not a change, what is your objetion? <fantasai> jeff: Things which in my mind, solving problems that have not happened in reality, don't want to add bureaucracy <mchampion> +1 to not solving problems that don't have real world examples <fantasai> florian: This doesn't add any bureaucracy. Just clarifies whether your'e allowed to send an email "I object to this" <fantasai> jeff: I think subjecting things to objetions... might land in Council. Going to tie ourselves in knots <fantasai> florian: Your disagreement makes it more important that we clarify this <fantasai> florian: if we don't have a general agreement of what can be objected to <fantasai> florian: then needs clarification <fantasai> florian: I thought any decision could be objected to <fantasai> jeff: Let's say we have a WG that has two chairs, work for two companies, each use two different browser engines <fantasai> jeff: and one changes to other browser engine, does that mean can object? <fantasai> dsinger: Need to read the text. Can object to the decision, has to be a decision to object to. <fantasai> jeff: ... <fantasai> dsinger: We're trying to be clear here <fantasai> florian: I'm not attempting to fix anything, I'm attempting to know whether it's possible right now whether it's possible to objet to any particular decision <dsinger> q? <fantasai> dsinger: Let's discuss at next call, so people can read the actual proposed text <fantasai> tink: Wondering in Jeff's use case, is decision change in browser engine, or decision to appoint chair? <fantasai> dsinger: I didn't think this was worth spending that much time on <fantasai> dsinger: move back into GH, get concerns there <fantasai> jeff: ask ppl to read dsingers' comments from August 12 <fantasai> jeff: We had resolution to work on this as part of Director-free branch <fantasai> jeff: In answer to tink's question, I was making a rhetorical point <fantasai> jeff: if we think that we want to make it possible to object to Team chair assignments <fantasai> jeff: then might need to open up a broader assignment about how chairs are chosen and ojections to that <dsinger> agreed, we labeled #281 as Director-free-specific; Florian has later realized that’s not necessarily true <fantasai> jeff: including W3C decisions and things outside W3C <fantasai> jeff: things that happen outside W3C are more impactful in my experience <weiler> q+ <fantasai> dsinger: If we can't resolve in next meeting, then will need to defer the issue <dsinger> ack sam <dsinger> ack weil <fantasai> weiler: As an observation, there's not a process for appealing a chair appointment <fantasai> weiler: but is possible to object to various decisions of the chair <fantasai> weiler: as those build up, ppl appointing chair will get a memo <florian> q+ <dsinger> ack fanta <jeff> Fantasai: You will not get it if chairs fail to make decisions <cwilso> agrees it should be possible to object to chair appointment. <fantasai> fantasai: but can always email W3M <dsinger> q? <dsinger> ack floria <jeff> David: We are talking about appointing chairs. <fantasai> florian: should get details in GH <fantasai> florian: but want to clarify I am *not* trying to make a process for objecting to chair appointments <fantasai> florian: Want to ask if all decisions in the Process can be objected to <jeff> q+ <dsinger> ack jef <fantasai> florian: If not, then maybe no Formal Objection is possible unless we're in an AC REview <fantasai> florian: Or if we want something in between, need to be clear which ones <dsinger> q? <fantasai> jeff: Anything that can be objected to should be listed explicitly in the Process, if not clear, then clarify that one <dsinger> https://github.com//issues/325 |
|
@jeffjaffe If I understood you correctly, during the call you said you thought that only the things that are explicitely listed in the process as being possible to formally object to can indeed be formally objected to. As far as I can tell, hardly anything in the process is explicitly listed as something you can formally object to. Various parts of the process detail what happens if someone Formally Object and gives various time when various people must indicate whether there were Formal Objections. These certainly give more than a hint about certain things being possible to formally object to, but specific things are largely not called out as "you can formally object to that". 3.3.2 does say:
I believe the implication is that if a decision, any decision, irks you sufficiently, you can appeal to the Director about it by making your objection formal. This pull request is attempting to make that interpretation explicit, not to introduce new process or new rights. Several people in the ProcessCG call, who are AB members, expressed support for merging that pull request. So this interpretation of mine is not an isolated view. You seem to believe that interpretation is wrong. I'd like to hear how you understand the current process: what can or cannot be formally objected to, and how do you tell them apart, if not by the means detailed in this pull request. As to your point about various circumstances during which people might be unhappy about chair assignments, I think it's an interesting, but orthogonal point. Even though chair appointments are at the discretion of the Director, and could be changed any time, there are some circumstances (changing affiliation) which the process considers to be important enough to require that a an explicit decision be made whether to maintain or replace the chair. Maybe that is not a helpful criteria, maybe it is. Maybe there should also be a criteria that a decision must be taken when the chair's employer discontinues their browser engine (or some generalization of that concept). Maybe there shouldn't be. But if the Process calls something out specifically as needing a decision, then that is what makes it possible to object to the decision when it is taken. |
|
@frivoal , rather than address your entire post which sometimes characterizes my position and sometimes doesn't, I would prefer to address what I think is the substantive piece:
We have decades of actual experience where people formally object. Web stakeholders may formally object to Working Group decisions about what goes into a spec. AC reps may formally object to charter proposals or document reviews. I do not see the need to make any changes at this time to our practice, hence I don't think we need a process change at this time. If the community wanted to make this more formal, my suggestion would be to formalize what we have actually been doing. As I mentioned above, we had reached a consensus when discussing #281 that it would be useful to open this "box of the process document" as part of the director-free exercise. For example, that would give the W3C Council the opportunity to weigh in - whether they want to increase their workload of formal objections. I continue to think that we have ample time to consider that issue at that time. |
I find this characterisation really disturbing. You're conflating "stakeholders typically formally object..." with "stakeholders may formally object..." Just because a right is rarely exercised does not mean the right doesn't exist. If the interpretation of the current process is so different between the CEO and the rest of the community, that needs to be clarified as a matter of haste, not put off to the indefinite future. |
|
I'm concerned; does the CEO (or team) feel that there are formal decisions for which there is no avenue of formal objection? If so, I'd like to know what they are. If not, then clarifying in the process that formally, any decision can be objected to (but you should explore less confrontational avenues first), seems the right thing to do. |
|
Thanks @mnot and @dwsinger . I see your points. I suppose David, that (back to #281) I was originally concerned about introducing the "right to object to chair appointments". I've seen some rather strong attacks on chairs in the past, and the team indeed takes those attacks seriously and as appropriate takes action. My concern had been that by formalizing the right to object to a person, we might make such personal attacks more prominent. But I think Mark raises a larger point - that all objections must be permitted formally (rather than informally as has been done in the past). We'll need to ensure in other ways that objections to chair appointments are always done professionally. |
Very much agreed - I think the W3C is already on the right track here, regarding fostering a professional environment. |
frivoal
removed
the
Agenda+
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this adds any functionality, and potentially duplicates existing text (in each section on decisions), and thus we shouldn't grow the Process document with this kind of summary. Such a summary is more appropriate for a non-normative guide, where it can link to each specific normative process section accordingly (so I'd be ok with adding fragment IDs for each of those sections instead as necessary). In addition, longer term I'd prefer we remove and replace use of "formal objections" as noted in the description of #393 .
|
@tantek duplication is not the goal, and that's certainly to be avoided, so maybe a rephrasing is in order. However, I suggest you have a look at the 4 comments that start at #299 (comment) for why I believe a clarification is desirable. |
frivoal
added
the
Closed: Retracted
Closes #281
Preview | Diff