Why the limit of three chairs? #8
Comments
|
I am okay with removing the max chair restriction in the charter. But I do think that more than three chairs does add extra overhead. |
|
(Note I was not actually asking to add a chair; just asking why the limitation.) |
|
I'm supportive of removing the text that specifies a limit of three chairs. |
|
In my experience, 1 or 2 chairs is usually sufficient for a CG or WG, and the value of adding additional chairs diminishes very sharply. While I don't think having a hard-coded limit is strictly necessary, I do think it's reasonable to try one in a CG—CGs, after all, are laboratories where process innovations may be tried at low risk to the rest of the consortium. (See also this comment of mine on issue #6.) That said, if this is really something that would cause an organization to choose not to join the CG, that would be new information that could easily lead to striking the text from the charter. |
|
I also find the 3 chair limit odd; I supposed it had to do with the clause about:
I'd love to drop both parts. Personally, I think if you can't get the chairs to be reasonable, then trying to enforce this 2/3rds support thing will just make it worse. I'd rather invite the chairs to continue to work toward unanimity possibly by adjusting or dropping the contentious issue. I understand we are preparing for contention here, but I'd rather have the stated rule be unanimous consent (another good reason to keep the number of chairs small). (If chairs drop to 2, then what does 2/3rds mean then?) |
|
Maybe a new issue, but an Election process for chairs in the charter? ...why? I mean I don't like STV either...but maybe we should propose this nice and lightweight process to the W3C Process doc instead? :) |
|
@travisleithead The chair selection bit is copied from the sample charter, so it's at least not novel. |
It's the same chair election process WICG uses IIRC. Like @jyasskin said, it's from the sample CG charter. |
|
Got it. Thanks. |
|
Given that this charter was privately developed, I don't think it's reasonable to "try out" limiting the number of chairs in this group. |
2/3rds means unanimity when n = 2. Given @TanviHacks & @erik-anderson's comments, I've got a change which drops this limit as part of #5, in 4870f74. Note to self: close this issue when the PR lands. |
* Update mission on home page to match the updated charter language. * Address a whole bunch of the feedback from issues #2 and #3. * Improve readability a bit. * Tweak wording re: WebAppSec per Tanvi's review of #5. * Chairs need to be able to close Proposals for any number of reasons (e.g. moderation). * Chairs must announce the removal of Work Items with rational for removal. * Explicitly reference the Ethical Web Principles from our mission statement. * Move the list of Work Items closer to the beginning of the Work Items section. * When migrating work to a WG, the Editors and Chairs will work together to figure out what destination is best. * Spell out more of the Chairs' responsibilities. * Linkify 'meetings' in a couple places. * Drop sentence per #10. * Spell out how Chairs formally notify the group of things. * Try to prevent data loss when closing Proposals or removing Work Items. * Use the non-draft link for the Ethical Web Principles. * Drop the chair maximum. * Contributions to Proposals are also under the CLA. * fix typo
|
Sentence removed in 32bd9e8. |
"There can be at most three Chairs." seems like a curious limitation for no particular purpose, and should be struck. If the group wants more chairs, they should add them; if they don't, they shouldn't. For example, WICG currently has four chairs, and could probably work quite well with more.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: