W3C Process Document 2023 (AC Review) Disposition of Comments for 2023-05-24- Draft

Dated Draft:

https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/snapshots/2023-04

Editor's Draft:

https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/

This Disposition of Comments covers comments received during the formal AC Review period for Process 2023.

Substantive Changes

Several review comments received during the AC Review period generated proposals for substantive changes:

• Increasing the size of the TAG

  See key discussion points in Issue #24

  At its April 2023 F2F, the TAG asked the AB to increase its size by 2 elected seats (1 per election cycle) and 1 appointed seat (resulting in an even 2 appointments per cycle). Theresa O’Connor, commenting as Apple’s AC rep on behalf of the TAG, requested the change for the 2023 election.

  At its May 2023 F2F, the AB agreed with increasing the elected seats, but wanted to gain experience with the appointment process before increasing the appointed seats, and proposes only to add those seats in Process 2023.

  There were arguments both for and against this change. In agreeing to the change, the AB considered:

  • That request represented the consensus of the TAG about itself, and the AB might give the TAG some deference in defining itself.
  • That the TAG is currently smaller than the AB, and this change makes them more equal.
  • That the TAG feels its workload would be better distributed among more people.
  • That the workload of the non-governance roles the TAG has adopted (reviewing specs) could be spread to people outside the TAG.
  • That there were some concerns raised about the TAG’s ability to form consensus in a larger group, particularly in consideration of their increased role in technical governance and leadership.
  • That there were some concerns raised that the level of representation and support each TAG member has would be decreased if the number of elected seats were increased.
  • That the newintroduction of term limits on the appointed seats (which are currently used to seat the two co-chairs, for example) would push those members to enter the elections also, and it might be good to have more open seats, to more easily accommodate them as elected participants without reducing the number available for other TAG members.

  Process changes proposed:

  … Six Eight participants elected by the Advisory Committee …

  … Terms are staggered so that three four elected terms and either one or two appointed terms expire each year. …

  … the minimum and maximum number of available seats are the same: the 3 4 seats of the terms expiring that year …

  … the minimum number of available seats is such that when added to the number of continuing participants, the minimum total number of elected seats is met (6 8 for the TAG, 9 for the AB) …

• Excluding TAG/AB from Council Decision votes on their own Decisions

  See key discussion points in Issue #17

  Mark Nottingham raised a concern about conflicts of interest when the Council rules on decisions of the TAG or AB. The AB didn’t feel that excluding the entire group from deliberations would result in better decisions, as doing so would remove almost all technical expertise (in the case of the TAG) or all process/governance expertise (in the case of the AB) from the Council deliberations.

  Instead, the AB concluded that both the TAG and AB should participate in a Council Decision formed by consensus, but if there is dissent the group originating the decision or proposal must abstain from a Council Decision by vote.

  The AB’s recommendation could be implemented by changes to the Process, which would provide the AC some assurances that it is required; it could also be implemented merely in practice and possibly defined as a recommendation in /Guide.

  Note that n cases where this safeguard would not be enough, Council retains the ability to delegate the Council Decision if necessary; and the AC retains the ability to appeal a Council Decision.

  Process changes that would implement abstention as a requirement:

  In that case, the decision is made by simple majority, with the W3C Council Chair breaking any tie. However, if the decision or proposal being objected to originated with the TAG or AB, then members of that group must abstain in such a vote. In case of a vote, if two members of a Council who share the same affiliation cast an identical ballot, then their ballots count as a one vote,

• Require reporting of dismissal vote countes

  See Issue #15, Issue #16

  In reviewing various concerns raised about the dismissal process, the Advisory Board concluded that the Process as proposed had an appropriate voting threshold, but that reporting the total number of Council votes for/against dismissing any individual would provide better assurances to the community about these decisions by showing how many Council members have confidence in or are concerned about the participation of each of their colleagues in that Council.

  The AB’s recommendation could be implemented by changes to the Process, which would provide the AC some assurances that it is required; it could also be implemented merely in practice and possibly defined as a recommendation in /Guide.

  Process changes that would implement dismissal vote count reporting as a requirement:

  A Council terminates by issuing a Council Report, which:

  • ...
  • may report vote totals, if any vote was held.
  • must report the number of votes for/against dismissing each participant.
  • may report vote totals for the Council’s decision, if a formal vote was held.

Editorial Changes

AC Review raised a number of suggestions for clarification, which the Process CG accepted and are summarized below:

• Clarified that “Tooling for Discussions and Publications” section also addresses archiving requirements. (Issue #2)

  Tooling and Archiving for Discussions and Publications

• Removed stray text referring to the previous Process for Submission Appeals: the previous Process sent Submission Appeals to either the TAG or AB; the new Process simply re-uses the newly-defined Council. (Issue #7)

  If rejected, the Submitter(s) may initiate a Submission appeal to either the TAG or the Advisory Board.

• Fixed typos and improved wording regarding Council membership stability.

  Membership of an instance the Council is be each Council instance is fixed at formation

• Simplified indirect reference to formal objections in AC Reviews.

  If there is dissent (i.e., there were Formal Objections, at least some of which were sustained),

• Clarified that formal AC Reviews are the only context in which dissent must be expressed as a Formal Objection.

  A Formal Objection=] always indicates a sustained objection, but isn't necessary to express it (except in some formal contexts such as the context of formal AC Reviews).

• Improved defining instance of “dismissal”.

  A potential Council member may be dismissed from the Council. In order to apply consistent criteria, the potential Council members decide collectively which reasons against service rise to a sufficient level for a potential member to be dismissed dismissed.

• Replaced the verb “sustain” with “uphold” when describing Council Decisions (throughout), to avoid confusion with the concept of an objector sustaining their objection.

  Otherwise, after sufficient deliberation, the [=W3C Council=] decides whether to sustain uphold or overrule the objection.

• Mark role of chair / team contact sentences as informative notes to be consistent with their informative references to the Guide which is referenced as describing those roles.

  Note: The role of the Chair [[CHAIR]] is described in the Art of Consensus [[GUIDE]].

  Note: The role of the Team Contact [[TEAM-CONTACT]] is described in the Art of Consensus [[GUIDE]].

• Simplified labelling, fixed colors, and improved spacing in the REC track diagram.

  [Old → New]

Index of Comments and Responses

Issue 1. #
Summary:  Timeline for publishing formal objections
From:     Jeffrey Yasskin
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/735
Closed:   Deferred
Verified: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/735

Issue 2. #
Summary:  Mention Archiving in Tooling section title
From:     fantasai
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/736
Changes:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/commit/14f4644c9008bf10021628d78c3238a39b139e58
Closed:   Accepted
Verified: Reporter is editor
Resolved: Editorial

Issue 3. #
Summary:  Improve wording of note about addressing FOs before advancement
From:     Jeffrey Yasskin
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/737
Closed:   Deferred
Verified: By AC comment

Issue 4. #
Summary:  AC Review questionnaire option to express disagreement
From:     Jeffrey Yasskin
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/738
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/738#issuecomment-1525644054
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/738#issuecomment-1544643945
Closed:   Invalid
Verified: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/738#issuecomment-1544662439

Issue 5. #
Summary:  FO resolution isn't explicitly invoked
From:     Jeffrey Yasskin
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/739
Closed:   Deferred
Verified: By AC comment

Issue 6. #
Summary:  Clarify that AB/TAG approval uses their normal decision policy
From:     Jeffrey Yasskin
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/741
Closed:   Deferred
Verified: By AC comment

Issue 7. #
Summary:  Clarify where Submission Appeals go
From:     Jeffrey Yasskin
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/742
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/742#issuecomment-1544656020
Changes:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/commit/189b5ec060b46094c70a3ff343cc0ddb7968e0de
Closed:   Accepted
Verified: [reporter thumbs up on response]
Resolved: Bugfix

Issue 8. #
Summary:  Remove normative keywords from non-normative notes
From:     Jeffrey Yasskin
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/745
Closed:   Deferred
Verified: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/745

Issue 9. #
Summary:  Avoid two different meanings for “sustain”
From:     Jeffrey Yasskin
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/746
Changes:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/762
Closed:   Accepted
Resolved: Editorial

Issue 10. #
Summary:  Clarify which formal contexts require FO for dissent
From:     Chris Needham
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/746#issuecomment-1549991610
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/746#issuecomment-1553935933
Changes:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/763
Closed:   Accepted
Verified: Reporter is change author
Resolved: Editorial

Issue 11. #
Summary:  Clarify purpose of dismissal
From:     Mark Nottingham
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/747
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/747#issuecomment-1544708674
Changes:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/757/commits/4f20cd1b0ebb44b07987e8ceedbda4b8db382fb7
Closed:   Accepted
Verified: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/747#issuecomment-1562212194

Issue 12. #
Summary:  “potential Council member” phrasing is wordy
From:     Mark Nottingham
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/747
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/747#issuecomment-1544708674
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/747#issuecomment-1545309505
Closed:   Rejected
Verified: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/747#issuecomment-1562212194
Resolved: Editorial

Issue 13. #
Summary:  Note wrt nature of Council is oddly placed
From:     Mark Nottingham
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/747#issuecomment-1529019322
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/747#issuecomment-1544708674
Closed:   Rejected
Verified: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/747#issuecomment-1562212194
Resolved: Editorial

Issue 14. #
Summary:  Unclear antecedent for “they”
From:     Mark Nottingham
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/747#issuecomment-1529019871
Changes:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/757/commits/e23a195b5775231ea33ca169ec204217cf33948d
Closed:   Accepted
Verified: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/747#issuecomment-1562212194
Resolved: Editorial

Issue 15A. #
Summary:  Use supermajority for dismissal voting (instead of majority)
From:     Mark Nottingham
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/748
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/748#issuecomment-1529728892
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/748#issuecomment-1529464611
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/748#issuecomment-1530089344
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/748#issuecomment-1545665413
Changes:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/760
Closed:   Rejected
Note:     The AB resolved not to change the voting threshold,
          but did resolve to make the dismissal vote counts public.
Resolved: AB May 2023 F2F

Issue 15B. #
Summary:  Use single-person veto for dismissal (instead of majority)
From:     Nigel Megitt
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/748#issuecomment-1531724271
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/748#issuecomment-1545665413
Changes:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/760
Closed:   Rejected
Note:     The AB resolved not to change the voting threshold,
          but did resolve to make the dismissal vote counts public.
Resolved: AB May 2023 F2F

Issue 16. #
Summary:  Improve transparency of dismissal process
From:     Advisory Board
Comment   https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/748
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/748#issuecomment-1545665413
Changes:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/760
Open:     Accepted by AB, proposed to the Director for either Process or /Guide
Note:     As a result of the discussion in GitHub issue 748 (see above)
          the AB resolved to require reporting dismissal vote counts,
          to show the level of support or concern for the participation
          of each member of the Council.

Issue 17. #
Summary:  AB/TAG Decisions and Council Conflict of Interest
From:     Mark Nottingham
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/749
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/749#issuecomment-1551892219
Changes:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/761
Open:     Accepted by AB, recommended to adopt into practice by CG
Note:     The AB resolved not to remove the TAG/AB from the Council,
          but to exclude them from a Council Decision vote (if any)
          if the decision/proposal in question came from the TAG/AB.
          They may still participate in a consensus Council Decision.
Note:     The Council can always delegate in cases where it feels that
          would provide a more legitimate decision; and the AC still
          retains the ability to appeal a Council Decision if necessary.
Resolved: AB May 2023 F2F

Issue 18. #
Summary:  Expressing disagreement in AC review without Formal Objection
From:     Mark Nottingham
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/750
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/750#issuecomment-1529053389
Closed:   Retracted

Issue 19A. #
Summary:  Council/Team Powers of Mitigation too broad
From:     Mark Nottingham
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/751
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/751#issuecomment-1529453863
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/751#issuecomment-1554703461
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/751#issuecomment-1559068321
Closed:   Invalid
Verified: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/751#issuecomment-1563685512

Issue 19B. #
Summary:  Limits on Council/Team Powers of Mitigation hard to understand
From:     Mark Nottingham
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/751#issuecomment-1560306816
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/751#issuecomment-1560492526
Closed:   Deferred
Verified: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/751#issuecomment-1563685512

Issue 20. #
Summary:  Publication of Minority opinions
From:     Mark Nottingham
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/752
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/752#issuecomment-1529175671
Closed:   Retracted

Issue 21. #
Summary:  Why is AC review of MoU appeal-based rather than approval-based?
From:     Mark Nottingham
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/753
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/753#issuecomment-1529194913
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/753#issuecomment-1530815822
Closed:   Deferred
Verified: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/753#issuecomment-1530815822

Issue 22. #
Summary:  Define “joint deliverables”
From:     Eric Siow
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/754
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/754#issuecomment-1532480890
Closed:   Deferred
Verified: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/754

Issue 23. #
Summary:  What to do in case of non-responsiveness during FO resolution
From:     Philippe Le Hegaret
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/755
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/755#issuecomment-1551893751
Closed:   OutOfScope
Note:     The AB resolved that /Guide should advise the Team to spin up
          the Council after a reasonable timeout when the objector or
          decider is non-responsive while trying to broker consensus or
          clarify their position.
Verified: Reporter is co-chair
Resolved: AB May 2023 F2F

Issue 24. #
Summary:  Increase size of TAG
From:     Theresa O'Connor
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/171
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/465
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/171#issuecomment-1517110155
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/171#issuecomment-1517166312
Response: https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/171#issuecomment-1551895803
Changes:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/733
Open:     Accepted by AB, proposed to Director
Resolved: AB May 2023 F2F

Issue 25. #
Summary:  Council composition is broken due to “member” vs “participant”
From:     Tantek Çelik
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/764
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/764#issuecomment-1562177663
Closed:   Invalid
Verified: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/764#issuecomment-1562300254

Issue 26. #
Summary:  Various Objections
From:     James Rosewell
Comment:  See https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/Process-2023/results
Open:     Formal Objection; deferred to the Director

Issue 27. #
Summary:  Various Concerns
From:     Jon Andrieu
Comment:  See https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/Process-2023/results
Note:     Needs specific issues / discussion to be actionable
Open:     Deferred ; needs Team response

Issue 28. #
Summary:  Clarify informative nature of references
From:     Tantek Çelik
Comment:  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/765
Response: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/766
Closed:   Approved by the Director