On May 7, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 7, 2007, at 7:58 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
[...]
Well, there's people in between where it's hard for me to tell
if they would have registered an FO as a follow-on to a "no" vote.
This business where the FO is a follow-on to a decision seems
broken, to me. The point at which to object, formally, is when
the question is put, not after the decision is made.
I've asked around, and that doesn't seem to be the way other W3C
Working Groups do it. I've heard from representatives from the Web
API, WAF, SVG, CSS, CDF, Web Security Context, Mobile Web Best
Practices and Device Description WGs, in all cases they decide by
simple majority after sufficient discussion, and Formal Objections
have to be registered separately. I encourage you to ask other
chairs about this.
I'm well aware that other chairs in other groups do it differently.
I still think it's wierd/broken.
From experience, it seems much more productive than the way we do it
now, in that you don't end up with every vote putting the project it
risk. I'm not sure why you think it's broken. The point of Formal
Objections, as I understand it, is to appeal a decision you strongly
disagree with, not to prevent a decision from being made.
The Process document also says: "In the W3C process, an individual
may register a Formal Objection to a decision."
Yeah, I might have to get that fixed.
Maybe we could stick to the Process until after you go through the
process of getting your changes adopted.
This seems pretty clear that the Formal Objection is to a
decision actually made, not just a proposed resolution. I feel a
little guilty citing the Process document, but I really do think a
voting process where every disagreement with the majority must be
reviewed by the Director creates practical problems as cited in my
original email.
I have no use for "I disagree with the majority" data.
OK, but voting isn't just for your benefit. It's for the whole group,
as a way to make decisions, and as a way for members of the group to
express their position for the record. I think people are a lot more
likely to move on after a decision they disagree with if they have
the chance to clearly express the disagreement, and feel they have
been heard.
I _only_
have use for
* I support the proposal; I'm willing to help get it deployed
* I object to the proposal to the extent that I want to put
the whole project at risk
I'm happy to lump all the rest (abstain/no answer/disagree/whatever)
together, for formal decision-making purposes.
It seems that these are the most extreme positions possible on any
issue. And trying to push people towards the most extreme positions
is likely to polarize the group more, rather than leading to
compromise. It's hard to become tolerant of differences when every
disagreement puts the project at risk
I know that in past cases of WG decisions I've disagreed with,
whether as a commentor or group member, I've been happy to express my
disagreement, have it recorded, and move on with no further appeal,
but I would *not* have been happy to abstain or have my vote look
like an abstention.
Maybe the easiest thing is changing the label on "abstain"
to "abstain or disagree" or change the label on "no"
to "formally object".
I still don't see why formal objection has to be part of the voting
process. A vote has two possible outcomes and it seems that one could
object to either. If "no" votes were in the majority, would you
consider every "yes" vote a Formal Objection? Would you have a vote
of "yes, and I formally object if the resolution doesn't carry"?
It really seems like Formal Objections should be a rarely used last
resort appeals process, and not part of the standard process at all.
And it really seems like making them a built-in part of the decision-
making process is likely to put the project at risk repeatedly.
I'd like to hear what our other chair thinks about this idiosyncratic
interpretation of the W3C decision process.
Regards,
Maciej
