This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 9918 - Consider adding a consensus-building component into the decision process
Summary: Consider adding a consensus-building component into the decision process
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: working group Decision Policy (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: This bug has no owner yet - up for the taking
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-poli...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-06-13 20:58 UTC by Laura Carlson
Modified: 2011-01-01 21:57 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Laura Carlson 2010-06-13 20:58:50 UTC
In Bug 9898 Lief said [1]:

> So I don't think the decision process is wrong per se, but I would 
> like that there were more encouragement to work for consensus 
> built into it.

Some thoughts to consider that might help this:

1. Explain More About Consensus

The Decision Policy says, "Authors of Change Proposals are strongly encouraged to seek consensus and revise their Change Proposals to gain more support." (step 3) [2]

It might help if the policy explained more about the concept of consensus and how to gain it. It could also state something about that, it is permitted to refine or re-define or re-frame an issue during discussion.

2. Facilitation and Mediation 

In an attempt to encourage consensus, it might be especially beneficial if the decision process afforded more facilitation and/or mediation. A chair or a staff contact or possibly a set of neutral list moderators might fill this role.

If discussion leaders/mediators could explore and brainstorm alternative approaches to an issue with the change proposal author and counter change proposal author, in an effort to build new, mutually advantageous approaches, rather than going over the same win-lose approaches that comprise most change proposals and counter proposals, it might be productive. 

A joint list of solution alternatives could be brainstormed and generated. These alternatives then would be examined to determine the costs and benefits of each from each author's point of view and any barriers to them. Eventually, the choices could be narrowed down to one approach, which is fine-tuned, often through a single negotiating text, until people can live with and support a decision (i.e. a proposal author might agree to an element being modified and improved and withdraw their proposal for the element to be removed from the spec).

If this idea is workable, it might be a win-win solution where the Chairs don't need to make decisions for the group and no one has to forsake strongly held convictions or needs. The resulting decision might not be everyone's ideal decision. But it might be one where people could live with it and we could all move forward together.

Thank you for your consideration.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9898#c5
[2] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#escalation-step3
Comment 1 Maciej Stachowiak 2010-07-28 01:36:59 UTC
Based on discussion among the chairs, added a brief note about consensus-building.

http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html.diff?r1=1.11&r2=1.12&f=h
Comment 2 Laura Carlson 2011-01-01 21:57:38 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> Based on discussion among the chairs, added a brief note about
> consensus-building.
> 
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html.diff?r1=1.11&r2=1.12&f=h

Thank you.