Abandoning Charter Refinement should require Team to agree #982
Labels
Agenda+
Marks issues that are ready for discussion on the call
Closed: Accepted
The issue has been addressed, though not necessarily based on the initial suggestion
Milestone
Comments
|
Basically I agree. In terms of how to describe it, I'm not 100% sure about whether to require a double decision as you suggest, or to make it a proposal by the facilitator + a decision by the Team. But then again, maybe this is a distinction without a difference. |
|
The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed
The full IRC log of that discussion<fantasai> Subtopic: Requiring Team to assent to abandoning charter review<fantasai> florian: Issue from Apple. Currently the facilitator can decide to give up unilaterally. <fantasai> ... Perhaps they give up too early <fantasai> ... so the proposal is that both the chartering facilitator and the Team need to agree to give up <fantasai> ... if the Team thinks effort should continue, then effort shoudl continue <plh> q+ <fantasai> ... potentially with a different facilitator <fantasai> plh: Can't Team decide anyway? <plh> "A group decision or Team Decision to initiate AC Review of the charter draft, subject to Team verification that the expectations of charter refinement are fulfilled.' <fantasai> florian: If we have a charter draft, and the group doesn't want to take it to the AC, then Team can decide unilaterally <fantasai> ... but the facilitator can decide to *give up* unilaterally <fantasai> s/can/can still/ <fantasai> plh: Ah <fantasai> florian: I agree with the feedback, unsure about wording <fantasai> plh: The Team can pick a different facilitator if the facilitator gives up <fantasai> florian: If they decide to give up trying personally, sure. But if they decide the effort overall should stop... <fantasai> plh: OK <fantasai> ... though we could restart the effort in any case <fantasai> florian: Yes, but more messy <fantasai> florian: One way to say this is that both the facilitator and the Team need to decide to give up <fantasai> ... other option is that facilitator proposes and Team confirms <fantasai> plh: I don't feel strongly <fantasai> TallTed: Inclined towards Florian's structure: decision by facilitator and concurrance by the Team <fantasai> ... appealing the decision, I don't think the intent is to force the facilitator who is resigning to continue with it <fantasai> ... so that is not a decision that is subject to objection <fantasai> florian: Not a question about they can resign. Question is if they decide to disband the group. <fantasai> ... Is it two decisions, or a proposal and a decision? <fantasai> [confusion] <fantasai> florian: The facilitator isn't just saying taht they can't do it personally, but that the task is not worth continuing, let's stop trying. <fantasai> plh: Can already object to a decision to abandon the proposal <fantasai> ... what's important is that it's a decision and can appeal it <fantasai> florian: Let's agree on the goal, and then I'll try to make a PR <fantasai> RESOLVED: Draft a PR for this issue <fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/982 |
frivoal
added a commit
to frivoal/w3process
that referenced
this issue
Jan 23, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The current draft requires only a Chair Decision from a facilitator to abandon efforts on a new charter. During internal review at Apple, it was asked if this decision shouldn't also consider the Team's position.
Suggestion: Require both a chair (chartering facilitator) decision and a Team decision in order to abandon the chartering effort.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: