Allow Tim Berners-Lee to abstain in Unanimous Short Circuit votes

[frivoal]

This removes him from the being on critical path for the Council's Unanimous Short Circuit votes, without affecting any other role he has as a TAG and Council member.

This is one possible solution to #784, with #791 and #792 being alternatives.

---

💥 Error: 400 Bad Request 💥

PR Preview failed to build. (Last tried on Aug 7, 2024, 6:13 PM UTC).

More

PR Preview relies on a number of web services to run. There seems to be an issue with the following one:

🚨 CSS Spec Preprocessor - CSS Spec Preprocessor is the web service used to build Bikeshed specs.

🔗 [Related URL]([object Object])

Error running preprocessor, returned code: 2.
Your document appears to use tabs to indent, but line 2540 starts with spaces.
FATAL ERROR: Line 2540 isn't indented enough (needs 2 indents) to be valid Markdown:
"      (in addition, Tim Berners-Lee <em bs-line-number=2540 class="rfc2119">may</em> also abstain)"
LINK ERROR: No 'dfn' refs found for 'advisory committee override'.
[=Advisory Committee Override=]
 ✘  Did not generate, due to errors exceeding the allowed error level.

If you don't have enough information above to solve the error by yourself (or to understand to which web service the error is related to, if any), please file an issue.

[tantek]

I agree with @dwsinger's concern. Absent context/linking, "abstain" implies explicit abstain, and that's insufficient to solve this use-case.

We need different language here, perhaps something about voting or not rather than just absention.

E.g. something like:

As an exception, the voting affirmatively requirement does not apply to Tim Berners-Lee, who may omit his vote or abstain.

[frivoal]

I guess that's the risk when you let a French speaker word things :) The French meaning of abstain is "omit to vote", while voting an explicit non-opinion would be called something like "voting blank". Now that I know English is different, I support @tantek 's proposed rephrasing.

[frivoal]

I suspect that this PR no longer serves a useful purpose given that #885 has been adopted. #791 or #792 may remain of interest, but I think we can close this one. Agenda+ to confirm.

[tantek]

I think I figured out how to propose the wording change I suggested in prose and accepted by @frivoal.

I think even with the adoption of #885, this is still useful. Even with consideration of #791 or #792, this helps to keep this part of the Process less dependent on a piece of clarification somewhere else.

I think this is a positive improvement that stands on its own that we should adopt, without impacting consideration of the other proposals.

[frivoal]

A few recent rephrasing suggestions no longer makes sense, since the underlying text has been changed by #885. I have rebased on top of the newest text, and included a simple provision that achieves the same effect. Feel free to propose improved rephrasings if you think that is useful, but personnaly, I don't seen the point: we are now allowing up to 20% of the council to abstain. Tim Berners-Lee can be part of these 20%. Regardless of phrasing, I don't find it useful to say that 20% may abstain if Timbl is among those who vote, but 20% + 1 person may abstain if Timbl is among those who abstain. That seems complicated for no good reason.

Therefore, my preference would be to close this as overtaken by events (#791, #792 remain relevant). But if others see value in this, I have no objection to finding better phrasing.

[TallTed]

"In addition ... also" is odd phrasing. This might work --

Suggested change

	(in addition, Tim Berners-Lee <em class=rfc2119>may</em> also abstain)
	* Tim Berners-Lee either abstains or votes affirmatively to adopt this resolution

[TallTed]

Or this, with a bit of future proofing, even if it's an unlikely future, and making it a little less Timbl-specific (even if that is the underlying intent) —

Suggested change

	(in addition, Tim Berners-Lee <em class=rfc2119>may</em> also abstain)
	* Directors Emeriti either abstain or vote affirmatively to adopt this resolution

[dwsinger]

and if he votes no? I am unclear as to what is trying to be achieved here. If it's that it's 80% of the body without Tim, then say that Tim does not count towards quorum, but may voyte, abstain, or fail to vote.

[TallTed]

I presume, if he votes "no", then the last bullet is triggered (i.e., one of "the potential members of the Council who did not renounce their seat" voted against adopting the resolution), and the resolution fails.

(As I understand this, there's an intent that only Directors Emeriti can submit an abstention; the other potential Council members can only abstain by not submitting a ballot.)

Suggested change

	(in addition, Tim Berners-Lee <em class=rfc2119>may</em> also abstain)
	* Directors Emeriti may record a vote of abstention, unlike other potential members of the Council, who can only abstain by not voting

Clearer formulation may require a more complete rephrasing.

[frivoal]

As I understand this, there's an intent that only Directors Emeriti can submit an abstention; the other potential Council members can only abstain by not submitting a ballot.

No. At least that's not my intent. The original intent was that only Timbl can abstain (by not voting), and everybody else has to vote affirmatively, or the short circuit fails. We have since (in #885) relaxed the rule to say that anybody can abstain (by not voting) as long as it's not too many people doing so. I believe this makes this special rule about Timbl redundant and unnecessary, and that we should close this PR.

@tantek has said that he thinks that even with the adoption of #885, he still thinks this PR is useful, which is why I have rebased it on top of the text that allows for abstention (as long as we stay above 80%), trying to add this special clause that allows for more slightly more abstention if Timbl is part of it. The awkwardness of adding in that clause comforts me in the idea that this is not helpful.

[tantek]

Suggested change

(in addition, Tim Berners-Lee <em class=rfc2119>may</em> also abstain)

Thanks for rebasing, and I agree with you that afterwards, this reads more awkwardly than helpful.
Also in taking a step back and considering the broader "why" of this PR, I think an overlooked aspect (which may lead to a cleaner solution) is that a short-circuit is in the context of a Team recommendation — this implies to me that the folks already on or affiliated in some way with the Team (including TimBL, both historically and possibly in a remaining soft influence way) have already had a chance to contribute their opinions (perhaps even solicited to do so) as part of that Team recommendation, and presumably are at least "ok" with it, and thus don't need to "double-vote" as it were (once as part of crafting the recommendation, and then again as part of the short-circuit).
Thus I'd drop this line entirely (as it is awkward), and I will propose a different, much smaller change that I believe both addressing the implicit intent of this PR, as well as the broader "problem" it is solving a part of.

[tantek]

Good iterations here exploring how to improve this section based on good reasoning.

I added further reasoning in the suggested changes which I believe accomplish the intent of this PR and solve the broader challenge of the Team making a short-circuit recommendation and then having the rest of the (non-Team and affiliated) potential council members vote on it.

[tantek]

Suggested change

	and potential members of a Council who are not renouncing their seat
	and potential members of a Council from elected and appointed positions who are not renouncing their seat

This has the effect of subsetting the short-circuit vote to the elected+appointed members of the AB + TAG, which I believe is correct, as the CEO and TimBL (and other Team contacts if any) have likely already had the chance to contribute to the Team recommendation, and furthermore unburdens the appointed TAG members from feeling pressured to vote (or not) in alignment with the Team who appointed them.

[frivoal]

The problem statement (from #784) for this pull request is:

@timbl was unintentionally left on the critical path of W3C Councils.

I think what you're trying to address here is a distinct question (or even two). I'd suggest opening a new issue/PR (or two) to discuss that separately.

As feedback on this: I think treating the CEO and Director emeritus as part of the Team, and therefore assuming their assent is implied in a Team recommendation is reasonable. However, that logic doesn't apply to appointed TAG members, and the rationale there is different, as you noted. I'm a lot less sure I agree with that part, and in any case, I'd suggest a separate discussion.

[dwsinger]

I agree. I think once they are on the TAG, they should be treated the same as every other member.

[tantek]

@dwsinger wrote:

I agree. I think once they are on the TAG, they should be treated the same as every other member.

I suppose now that TAG appointees cannot be re-appointed (they have to run for election explicitly to continue serving after their appointed term ends), there is less ongoing connection, potential pressure from, or sense of obligation to the Team appointing them. I'll make a minor edit accordingly at least to capture these suggestions before creating a new issue/PR as @frivoal suggests.

Update: new PR #906 as requested by @frivoal that I believe better solves the goal of this PR "removes [TimBL] from the being on critical path for the Council's Unanimous Short Circuit votes, without affecting any other role he has as a TAG and Council member" by generalizing to a larger superset goal of removing the Team (and related) from the being on critical path for the Council's Unanimous Short Circuit votes, without affecting any other role(s) they may have with respect to the Council.

[frivoal]

I consider this PR of mine to have become moot since #885 has been accepted. When everybody had to affirmatively vote in the short circuits, making an exception for Timbl could make some amount of sense. Now that we do allow for a small number of abstentions anyway, allowing for slightly more abstentions if timbl is part of the people abstaining is unnecessarily convoluted, and brings no clear value. Other open question about his role in the council and tag may valid to discuss, but I am no longer pursuing this particular change.