Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Generalizing AC Appeals and using this procedure for recall. #888

Draft
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Generalizing AC Appeals and using this procedure for recall. #888

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
acf7faf
Refactor AC Appeals
frivoal Jun 18, 2024
9881333
Add recall procedures for AB and TAG members
frivoal Jun 18, 2024
95013e2
Limit AB/TAG recalls by the AC to collective votes of no confidence
frivoal Dec 6, 2024
ebb1fba
rephrase
frivoal Feb 1, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
118 changes: 98 additions & 20 deletions index.bs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1309,15 +1309,66 @@ Verifiable Random Selection Procedure</h5>
The incomplete terms are assigned in result order.
</ol>

<h5 id="AB-TAG-recall">
Recalling AB or TAG members</h5>

<h6 id="individual-removal">
Individual Removal</h6>

Individual participants of the [=Advisory Board=] or the [=Technical Architecture Group=]
can be <dfn export lt="remove|removal">removed</dfn> from those groups
if they are found by their peers
to be grossly neglecting their duties,
or to be acting in a way that seriously hampers the group's ability to function normally.

A chair of the [=AB=] or [=TAG=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> hold a hearing
on the potential [=removal=] of a participant
if requested by at least three of the participants in the group.
After giving the individual in question
an opportunity to defend themselves,
a vote on the proposed [=removal=] is held.
If at least three quarters of the participants in the group,
excluding the individual who is the subject of such vote,
then vote in favor of the proposal,
the individual's seat on [=AB=] or [=TAG=] is [=vacated=] immediately.
Comment on lines +1330 to +1333
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would say that a lower threshold is sufficient. A simple majority might suffice in this case.

Consider this: if there are three people who are willing to raise this, then that alone is indicative of dysfunction in need of remediation. Removal should not be the first option there, but if you need it, then there is a chance that some people will be forced to recuse or some will be absent, making it quite difficult to reach 3/4.


<h6 id="collective-removal">
Collective removal</h6>

The [=Advisory Committee=] <em class=rfc2119>may</em>
hold a <dfn export>vote of no confidence</dfn>
in the [=Advisory Board=] or the [=Technical Architecture Group=].

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.
Comment on lines +1342 to +1345
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.


Within one week, the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> initiate an [=Advisory Committee Override=]
on the proposal.

The conclusion of the [=Advisory Committee Override=] is final,
and cannot be the subject of a [=Formal Objection=] nor of an [=AC Appeal=]:
if the [=Advisory Committee Override=] proposal passes,
all seats on [=AB=] or [=TAG=] are [=vacated=] immediately;
if it fails, it cannot be invoked on the same body
sooner than six months since their previous invocation.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think that in both cases, you want to include some sort of reporting responsibility. That is, there is an announcement that the seat is vacated.

There is no way to hide what is happened here and you don't want to have people learn via rumor mills. Information should be publicly communicated to the AC by the chairs or Team as promptly as possible.

<h5 id="AB-TAG-vacated">
Elected Groups Vacated Seats</h5>

An [=Advisory Board=] or [=TAG=] participant's seat is vacated when:
An [=Advisory Board=] or [=TAG=] participant's seat is <dfn lt="vacated|vacant">vacated</dfn> when:

<ul>
<li>
the participant resigns, or

<li>
the participant is [=removed=], or

<li>
a [=vote of no confidence=] in the body they are part of is successful, or

<li>
an Advisory Board or TAG participant changes affiliations
such that the <a href="#AB-TAG-constraints">Advisory Board and TAG participation constraints</a> are no longer met,
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1368,6 +1419,12 @@ Elected Groups Vacated Seats</h5>
and the maximum number corresponds to all unoccupied seats.
Except for the number of available seats and the length of the terms,
the <a href="#AB-TAG-elections">usual rules for Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Elections</a> apply.

<li>
If seats are vacated due to a successful [=vote of no confidence=],
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think that you want to set a threshold for triggering an election, not just have this for the no confidence vote. The bodies will likely function with a few gaps, but there is a critical point at which the groups are non-viable. I might suggest 2/3 of the target size as that threshold.

Suggested change
If seats are vacated due to a successful [=vote of no confidence=],
If vacancies reduce
the number of [=AB=] participants to 6 or fewer
or the number of [=TAG=] participants to 7 or fewer,

the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> organize an election,
under the same condition as for individually vacated seats,
Comment on lines +1425 to +1426
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> organize an election,
under the same condition as for individually vacated seats,
the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> organize an election.
Vacated seats are filled for the remainder of the term of the vacancy,

unless the next regularly scheduled election is fewer than three months away.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not clear on the three month choice. That means that you might win an election for a 3 month and a day term. That's pretty pointless, I'd go with six.

Suggested change
unless the next regularly scheduled election is fewer than three months away.
unless the next regularly scheduled election for the vacancy is less than six months away,
in which case the remainder of the term is extended by two years.

</ul>

<h3 id="GAGeneral" oldids="ChapterGroups, WG-and-IG">
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2887,24 +2944,50 @@ Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives</h3>

An [=Advisory Committee representative=] initiates an [=appeal=] by sending a request to the [=Team=],
and should also share this request with the [=Advisory Committee=].
The request should say “I appeal this Decision”
The request <em class=rfc2119>should</em> say “I appeal this Decision”
and identify the decision,
and may also include their rationale for appealing the decision.
and <em class=rfc2119>may</em> also include their rationale for the [=appeal=].

Note: See [[DECISION-APPEAL inline]] for a recommendation
on how to communicate an appeal request to the [=Team=] and the [=AC=].

Within one week the [=Team=] <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the appeal process
Within one week, the [=Team=] <em class="rfc2119">must</em> initiate the [=appeal=]
in the form of an [=Advisory Committee Override=]
on the proposal to overturn the decision.

The conclusion of the [=Advisory Committee Override=] is final;
the same decision cannot be appealed more than once.

If the [=Advisory Committee Override=]
approves the proposal to overturn the decision,
those who had initiated the proposal <em class=rfc2119>may</em> revise it
to address the causes of rejection
and follow the ordinary applicable process
to submit the revised proposal.

<h3 id="ac-override">
Advisory Committee Override</h3>

An <dfn export>Advisory Committee Override</dfn> is an exceptional two-step procedure
used to resolve certain matters where neither the usual [=consensus=]
process nor its [[#addressing-fo|escalation path]] is sufficient.

Note: Currently, this only applies to [=AC Appeals=]
and [=votes of no confidence=] in the [=AB=] or [=TAG=].

First, the [=Team=] <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the proposal for an [=Advisory Committee Override=]
to the [=Advisory Committee=]
and provide a mechanism for [=Advisory Committee representatives=]
to respond with a statement of positive support for this appeal.
to respond with a statement of positive support for holding a vote.
The archive of these statements <em class="rfc2119">must</em> be [=member-only=].

If, within <span class="time-interval">one week</span> of the Team's announcement,
5% or more of the [=Advisory Committee=] support the appeal request,
the Team <em class="rfc2119">must</em> organize an appeal vote
5% or more of the [=Advisory Committee=] support holding the vote,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is basically like having a vote to have a vote. I don't see the point.

It reduces some of my concerns about DoS, engaging this mechanism is exactly the sort of thing I'd like to avoid, but it also makes it nearly infeasible to use this process. Even though 5% seems small, that's a pretty significant movement given the activity levels in a pretty large consortium. I suggested one objector and two seconds, but you could make the two into five or something like that.

the Team <em class="rfc2119">must</em> organize a vote
asking the [=Advisory Committee=]
“Do you approve of the Decision?”
together with links to the decision and the appeal support.
whether they approve of the Advisory Committee Override proposal,
including details of the proposal
and links to support for holding the vote.

The ballot <em class="rfc2119">must</em> allow for three possible responses:
“Approve”,
Expand All @@ -2917,24 +3000,19 @@ Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives</h3>
(including explicit “abstain” ballots)
by [=Advisory Committee Representatives=]:
* if fewer than 5% participate,
the vote fails.
the proposal is rejected.
* if at least 5% but no more than 15% participate,
and the number of “Approve” ballots exceeds three times (3x) the number of “Reject” ballots,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This seems pretty silly. I understand the goal, but it encourages tactical voting due to it being non-contiguous. Opponents can withhold participation to get a better outcome.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It might be worth an example. For simplicity, let's assume 100 members.

At the 3x to 2x threshold (15%), four "reject" votes blocks any number of "approve" votes up to 11, but one more "reject" vote causes the motion to pass. This is because at 16 participating, five "reject" votes is overridden by 11 "approve" votes.

Worse, prior to the 2x to 1x threshold (20%), a motion is blocked by seven "reject" votes at 13:7 in favor. Up to six more "reject" votes causes the motion to pass. If opponents want to have their say and retain the same outcome, they need to find seven more "reject" votes (with no more "approve" votes).

There are ways to address this, but it involves math. I wonder if this goal is worth that.

the vote passes.
the proposal is approved.
* if more than 15% but fewer than 20% participate,
and the number of “Approve” ballots exceeds twice (2x) the number of “Reject” ballots,
the vote passes.
the proposal is approved.
* if 20% or more participate,
and the number of “Approve” ballots exceeds the number of “Reject” ballots,
the vote passes.
the proposal is approved.

If the vote passes,
the decision is overturned.
Following such rejection,
those who had initiated the proposal may revise it
to address the causes of rejection
and follow the ordinary applicable process
to submit the revised proposal.
Otherwise,
the proposal is rejected.

<h2 id="Reports">
W3C Technical Reports</h2>
Expand Down