[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 10:25 AM 6/4/2003 -0400, AndrewWatt2000@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 04/06/2003 12:23:56 GMT Daylight Time,
>cowan@mercury.ccil.org writes:
>
>>It's a stable document, representing the consensus of the committee.
>>To move it along to an OASIS standard, three OASIS members have to
>>certify that they are using it, and then a vote is held wherein
>>at least 10% of the membership must vote yes and no more than 10% may
>>vote no.
>
>
>John,
>
>For my education, what is the W3C voting procedure?
Here's the relevant section from the Process Document [1], which can be
found at [2].
<snip>
4.1.2 Group Consensus and Votes
The W3C process requires Chairs to ensure that groups consider all
legitimate views and objections, and endeavor to resolve them. Decisions
may be made during meetings
(<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/groups.html#ftf-meeting>face-to-face
or
<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/groups.html#distributed-meeting>distributed)
as well as through email. The following terms are used in this document to
describe the level of support for a group decision:
* Unanimity: All participants agree.
* Consensus: No participants object (but some may abstain).
* Dissent: At least one participant objects.
Where unanimity is not possible, the group should strive to make decisions
where there is at least consensus with substantial support (i.e., few
abstentions) from all participants. To avoid decisions that are made
despite nearly universal apathy (i.e., with little support and substantial
abstention), groups are encouraged to set minimum thresholds of active
support before a decision can actually be recorded. The appropriate
percentage may vary depending on the size of the group and the nature of
the decision. A group charter may include a quorum requirement for
consensus decisions.
In some cases, even after careful consideration of all points of view, a
group may find itself unable to reach consensus. When this happens, if
there is a need to advance (for example, to produce a deliverable in a
timely manner), the Chair may announce a decision to which there is
dissent. When deciding to announce such a decision, the Chair must be aware
of which participants work for the same (or
<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/organization.html#MemberRelated>related)
Member organizations and weigh their input accordingly. When a decision
must be reached despite dissent, groups should favor proposals that create
the least strong objections. This is preferred over proposals that are
supported by a large majority of the group but that cause strong objections
from a few participants.
The Chair decides when to resolve an issue in the face of dissent. In this
case, a dissenter may request that any
<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/groups.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews>formal
objections be reported at later review stages.
</snip>
Jonathan
[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/
[2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/groups.html#WGVotes
|
