Leaving presentation mode.
Elika J Etemad (fantasai)
W3C Advisory Board, Invited Expert
Implementing a Member-led Process
Roles of the Director
Announcing things
- Negotiating MoUs
- Initiating charter review by the AC
- Managing group closure
- Disciplining participants
- Handling Member Submissions
- Judging participation eligibility
- Approving technical report transition requests
- Assessing AC consensus
- Ex-officio seat on TAG
- Appointing TAG members
- Resolving Formal Objections
Process 2023 Task List
- Reassign roles of the Director
- Constrain Powers
- Clean up definitions
- Integrate Board of Directors
Reassignments
- Team
- CEO
- Tim Berners-Lee (himself)
- Team + [AB|TAG|AC|Etc.]
- AC/W3C Decision
- W3C Council
Team: Administrative Tasks and Procedural Verifications
- Announcing things
- Initiating AC Reviews (including charters)
- Handling Member Submissions
- Judging participation eligibility
- Verifying technical report criteria
- Negotiating “MoUs” (now called “technical agreements)
Oversight: Team Decisions can be appealed by filing a Formal Objection.
Team Decisions (Review)
Team Decision
Decisions made by members of the Team in connection with this Process, based on their own individual or collective judgement.
CEO: Disciplinary Actions
CEO responsible for disciplinary action against participants
The CEO may take disciplinary action, including suspending or removing for cause a participant in any group (including the AB and TAG) if serious and/or repeated violations, such as failure to meet the requirements on individual behavior of (a) this process and in particular the CEPC, or (b) the membership agreement, or (c) applicable laws, occur.
TimBL: Founding Director’s TAG Seat
Permanent seat on the TAG goes to Tim Berners-Lee personally
The TAG consists of:
- Tim Berners-Lee, who is a life member;
- Three participants appointed by the Team;
- Six participants elected by the Advisory Committee following the AB/TAG nomination and election process.
Team + AB/TAG: Appointments
- Team + Community TAG appointed seats
- Recruited by Team with input from community, TAG, AC, Chairs
- Ratified by ⅔ AB + ⅔ TAG
- TAG + Team TAG chairs
- Appointed by Team only if TAG fails at consensus
- Team + AB AB chairs
- Appointed by Team with input from AB
- Ratified by ⅔ AB
Team + AB/TAG: Failures
- Team + TAG + AB Lower maturity of technical report (w/o Group Decision)
- Team Decision
- Ratified by TAG + AB
- ( Team | TAG | AB ) Proposing early group closure
- Initiated by Team or AB or TAG
- Ratified by AC
AC/W3C Decisions (Director-free)
A W3C Decision is determined by the Team on behalf of the W3C community by assessing the consensus of the W3C Community after an Advisory Committee review.
- Taken by AC Review of a proposal (charter, REC, policy, group closure)
- Team now interprets outcome of AC Reviews (rather than Director)
- Resulting decision is now constrained (rather than unconstrained)
- AC can still appeal
AC Review Outcome Constraints
- Sustained Formal Objections or insufficient support
⇒ proposal rejected or returned for further work
- Consensus (allowing overruled Formal Objections)
⇒ proposal adopted or resubmitted with adjustments
- All changes to text content must be announced to AC
- Substantive (non-editorial) changes require
- Announcement with rationale
- Consensus of AC that voted
- Any other Process requirements for changes
(e.g. WG approval, tests, exclusion opportunity, etc.)
Early Group Closure Limits
- Team or AB or TAG proposes to close early
- Proposal must include rationale
- AC must ratify (W3C Decision)
- Causes limited to:
- Insufficient member resources to continue operation
- Patent Advisory Group advised to close
- TAG or AB determined detrimental to W3C or its mission
- Finished work early!
AB/TAG Ratifications of Team Actions
- AB/TAG ratifications of Team appointments
- Two consecutive terms limit on TAG appointments
- AB+TAG ratification of lowering technical report maturity stage
Generalize Definition of Consensus
Allow re-use in contexts that don’t allow Formal Objections (e.g. Council)
Consensus
A substantial number of individuals in the set support the decision and there is no sustained objection from anybody in the set.
Generalize Editorial vs Substantive
Editorial vs Substantive previously only defined for REC-track documents
Editorial Change
Changes that do not functionally affect interpretation of the document.
Addressing Formal Objections
W3C Council: Adjudication vs Escalation
The purpose of a Formal Objection in the W3C Process was to escalate a decision to a higher authority, not necessarily because it was improperly made, but because the objector believed the decision to be wrong.
Tim Berners-Lee
⇒ AB + TAG + CEO
W3C Council: Benefits of Council Escalation
- Wider Representation
- Escape group silos
- Balanced representation of wider Membership, not just WG participants
- Broader Perspective
- AB: process / governance / strategic perspective
- TAG: wide-range technical / architectural perspective
- CEO: Team perspective
- Second Opinion
- Fresh set of eyes
- Senior review
Reminder: Vote in W3C Elections!
Council Powers and Responsibilities
- Council reviews Team Report, and may investigate further
- Council can attempt to broker consensus
- Council can sustain or overrule an objection
- Council can make recommendations
- Council can suggest mitigations for an overruled decision
- Council can form sub-groups for analysis (but not taking decisions)
Council Decisions
- Unanimity > Consensus > Majority Vote
(one vote per affiliation)
- Council Report
- MUST include Decision
- MUST include Rationale
- MAY include Minority Opinion
- MAY include Recommendations
- MAY suggest Mitigations
- MUST report on Participation
- MUST report vote totals (for any decisions by vote)
- MUST NOT attribute individual positions
- Council Decisions can be overturned by AC Appeal
Consensus & Qualitative Judgement > Quantitative Voting
Board of Directors Process Integration