Generalizing AC Appeals and using this procedure for recall. #888
Conversation
frivoal
added
the
Agenda+
frivoal
force-pushed
the
w3c-vote
branch
2 times, most recently
from
4866220 to
d6b102a
Compare
|
An alternative mid-ground would be stating a "supermajority" threshold:
twice => > 2/3 or 67%, thrice => > 3/4 or 75%
|
|
@chaals, I'd rather not phrase it this way, because when you just say "supermajority of 2/3" or some such phrasing, it's ambiguous how you treat abstain ballots. You can make it clear, but that usually make the phrasing longer and clunkier, which is why I think "x times as many ballots for as against" or that sort of phrasing is better. |
frivoal
force-pushed
the
w3c-vote
branch
2 times, most recently
from
d77299a to
e2edd24
Compare
|
I've updated this draft PR to reflect my current take on this issue, as expressed in https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/237#issuecomment-2354297741. |
frivoal
removed
the
Agenda+
|
The AB has not reached a conclusion on this topic. Temporarily removing agenda+ |
martinthomson
left a comment
martinthomson
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't spend a lot of time with this part of the process and there are a few comments here that reflect that. Feel free to defer those to issues if you would prefer not to engage with them.
index.bs
Outdated
| An [=Advisory Committee representative=] initiates a [=vote of no confidence=] | ||
| by sending a request to the Team, and <em class=rfc2119>should</em> also share this request with the Advisory Committee. | ||
| The request <em class=rfc2119>must</em> identify which of the [=AB=] or [=TAG=] is targeted, | ||
| and <em class=rfc2119>should</em> also include the rationale. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that you want a three member threshold for this too. Otherwise, this is open to trolling and DoS.
I'd be OK with a higher threshold than three, but not a lower one.
If that takes the form of one AC member initiating an override that has to be seconded by two other members in all cases, that would be ideal. I know that this mechanism hasn't been activated, but it's an organizational vulnerability.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It already is a 3 stage thing:
- someone calls for a vote of no confidence
- we check if >=5% of the membership agree that we should run a vote of no confidence (within a time limit of 1 week)
- if so, we run the actual vote of no confidence
Adding an "at least two people need to agree" seems redundant with step two.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that the second step is not feasible (you allow more time for the final vote, which only needs to clear the same threshold). So I am suggesting a replacement for that stage.
|
I think this PR needs some updating; and we should clean up the discussion to focus on the current proposal at hand, rather than on previous variations of trying to address this problem. @frivoal Would it make sense to do the clean-up here, or to summarize the open points of discussion into the issue and open a new PR? |
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This extracts the 5% confirmation vote, followed by the actual vote into a separate procedure, invoked by the AC Appeal, making it reusable. Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: fantasai <[email protected]>
See w3c#882 Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Martin Thomson <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: fantasai <[email protected]>
The vote of no confidence phrasing seemed clunky, and didn't mesh well with the section's title. Use the word "recall" instead. Co-authored-by: fantasai <[email protected]>
Use the same word (invoke) to declare the start and to talk about when we count 6 months from. Co-authored-by: fantasai <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: fantasai <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jeffrey Yasskin <[email protected]>
frivoal
force-pushed
the
ab-tag-discipline
branch
from
f060348 to
f18078b
Compare
|
The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed The full IRC log of that discussion<brent> subtopic: https://github.com//pull/888<Ian> Brent: Say "merge", "continue", or "close" <brent> Github: https://github.com//pull/888 <Ian> PLH: We have a "Needs AB feedback" label <Ian> [We review the background of the pull request] <Ian> Brent: I'm hearing it's not ready to merge; we need more AB and TAG feedback. |
Co-authored-by: Theresa O'Connor <[email protected]>
|
Merging into the ab-tag-discipline branch, as decided on the 2025-09-24 Process CG call. That branch itself is not being merged into main, and does not represent consensus, merely work in progress. |
14 participants
This PR is a first draft attempting to address
#886 and#882.Neither haveIt has not been resolved on at this point, but this shows what adoptingthemit could look like.It can be reviewed as a whole, or commit by commit
, to distinguish the effects of #886 from those of #882.update: #886 has been handled separately, removing discussion of it from this pull request.
Preview | Diff