Allow Tim Berners-Lee to abstain in Unanimous Short Circuit votes #793
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -2537,13 +2537,15 @@ Short Circuit</h5> | |||||||||||||||
| and potential members of a Council who are not renouncing their seat | ||||||||||||||||
| confirm it by a vote which results in both of the following: | ||||||||||||||||
| * at least 80% of them vote affirmatively to adopt this resolution | ||||||||||||||||
| (in addition, Tim Berners-Lee <em class=rfc2119>may</em> also abstain) | ||||||||||||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. "In addition ... also" is odd phrasing. This might work --
Suggested change
There was a problem hiding this comment. 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
There was a problem hiding this comment. 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. There was a problem hiding this comment. 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
Clearer formulation may require a more complete rephrasing. There was a problem hiding this comment.
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. There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
Thanks for rebasing, and I agree with you that afterwards, this reads more awkwardly than helpful. |
||||||||||||||||
| * none of them vote against adopting the resolution | ||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
| The request for confirmation <em class=rfc2119>must</em> be open for a period of at least two weeks, | ||||||||||||||||
| or until every potential member of the Council not renouncing their seat | ||||||||||||||||
| has voted, | ||||||||||||||||
| whichever is shortest. | ||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
| This step <em class=rfc2119>may</em> be run concurrently with [[#council-participation]] | ||||||||||||||||
| and prior to choosing a [=W3C Council Chair|Chair=]. | ||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The problem statement (from #784) for this pull request is:
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree. I think once they are on the TAG, they should be treated the same as every other member.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@dwsinger wrote:
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.