Re: CG decision making

Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:26:17 -0400, Olle Olsson <olleo@sics.se> wrote:
> 
>> Maybe I am dyslectic, but the meaning of this point seems strange to
>> me. Some "grouping parenthesis" missing?
>>> + discussion of the proposal should not be in the same thread as
>>> saying "I
>>> agree", or "I disagree", or "I abstain" - to make it easy to determine
>>> what is an actual "vote".
>>
>> Do we *not* respond in the same thread? Or never mix discussions with
>> "I [dis]agree" in the same message? What mailing discipline enforces
>> the "easy to determine" effect you desire?
> 
> The idea is that a single thread contain votes - as replies to the CfC
> email. If people wanted to debate the merits of a question, they should
> do so in a separate thread.
> 
> An alternative is that we create a WBS survey. This requires me to
> copy/paste the proposal to create a survey, although it is fairly
> simple. Then anyone in the CG can vote on it. There are also more
> options - for example it is possible to rank things in the WBS tool. And
> it allows for comments alongside a vote - but I'd rather keep comments
> in the mailing list.
> 
> This may be a better idea.

I prefer that idea. I would be uncomfortable with that two answers
thing, one w/ my vote and one advocating why I'm up or down voting.

JC

> 
>> /olle
> 
> Art also suggested we move the content of the wiki to the main W3C wiki,
> and use that - e.g. for recording decisions. I don't mind either way.
> Any preferences?
> 
> cheers
> 
> Chaals
> 
>> On 2014-06-12 16:17, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> As chair of this community group, in principle I get to decide what are
>>> group decisions. I'd like us to work on fairly democratic principles,
>>> so I
>>> suggest the following strawman:
>>>
>>> + anyone who wants a decision declared by the CG can make a call for
>>> consensus.
>>> + it should be proposed in an email, with "CfC" or "call for
>>> consensus" in
>>> the subject line.
>>> + there should be a clear statement of the resolution that will be
>>> adopted, assuming it achieves consensus. I.e. there should be a literal
>>> statement.
>>> + the time allowed for response should be at least two weeks.
>>> + discussion of the proposal should not be in the same thread as
>>> saying "I
>>> agree", or "I disagree", or "I abstain" - to make it easy to determine
>>> what is an actual "vote".
>>> + at the end of the time available for response, I will declare a
>>> consensus, or a large majority, if one is apparent.
>>>
>>> There are some questions I have. The most obvious one is that I think we
>>> should record all decisions in a common place. Wiki works for me as a
>>> suggestion, but does anyone else have one? We could also use the
>>> tracker,
>>> or some other mechanism if anyone thinks we really should.
>>>
>>> Comments? thoughts?
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> Chaals
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

Received on Thursday, 12 June 2014 16:53:24 UTC
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jun/0164.html
lists.w3.org
CC-MAIN-2024-22
11475
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:WN4VE3SNDNBUVTPI7D47OJWFF6W5DLVX
<urn:uuid:47c8fb59-7107-498c-8b9e-6f0b97a58b09>
2024-05-18T14:46:42Z
104.18.23.19
application/xhtml+xml
sha1:KEEZFXZDOHELBIJ47HWMYT2N37AAFR2L
<urn:uuid:8540b432-82b6-476e-8c47-65e7db523eab>
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jun/0164.html
response
<urn:uuid:0dd51a68-7d95-4973-8e2c-017f695474eb>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-22
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-253
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/