Update consensus.md to include online meetings #1418
Conversation
The consensus document currently implies that consensus can only be reached at an in-person meeting, this is out of date as we regularly use the same consensus process for online CG, and Subgroup meetings. Updating the document to reflect the current process.
process/consensus.md
Outdated
| or `Strongly Against`. Participants vote for a single option by raising their | ||
| hand, or abstain entirely. Aggregate votes are recorded by the note-taker. | ||
| 3. If deemed relevant, the chair can ask certain participants if their wish to | ||
| hand, voting on a poll, or in chat for online meetings, or abstain entirely. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about this wording: "Participants either abstain entirely or vote for a single option by raising their hand if meeting in person or by voting on a virtual poll or commenting in chat if meeting online."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
or perhaps even "if attending in-person/online" since in practice we have both in a single meeting.
process/consensus.md
Outdated
| left up to the champion, with input from the chair. When a proposal is near | ||
| maturity the champion shall bring it to a meeting and seek wider | ||
| collaborators to form a subgroup. Gauging consensus in the small group is | ||
| left up to the champion, gauging consensus in a subgroup is left to the chair, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| left up to the champion, gauging consensus in a subgroup is left to the chair, | |
| left up to the champion, and gauging consensus in a subgroup is left to the chair |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since "small groups" include subgroups, it is ambiguous whether the chair or the champion declares consensus in cases where the small group is also a subgroup. It would be good to clarify that "if the small group is a subgroup, then the chair or co-chairs of that subgroup gauge consensus, and otherwise the champion guages consensus."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I hit resolve by accident but, small group consensus especially online (ex: on PRs, issues), is usually up to the champion, and sometimes up to the subgroup chair. Whereas consensus at Subgroup meetings is usually upto the Subgroup chair. Will walk back the edit, and reword this better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've reworked this paragraph a little bit to include subgroups, ptal.
process/consensus.md
Outdated
| the small group can be revisited until consensus is reached at an in-person, | ||
| or online CG meeting. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| the small group can be revisited until consensus is reached at an in-person, | |
| or online CG meeting. | |
| the small group can be revisited until consensus is reached at an in-person | |
| or online CG meeting. |
process/consensus.md
Outdated
| For in-person meetings, champions are expected to list points for which they | ||
| will seek consensus in the meeting agenda, and new consensus points can be added | ||
| in-person as the discussion proceeds. | ||
| For in-person, and online meetings, champions are expected to list points for which they |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| For in-person, and online meetings, champions are expected to list points for which they | |
| For meetings, champions are expected to list points for which they |
process/consensus.md
Outdated
| @@ -59,7 +60,7 @@ official video calls. In the latter case, the consensus vote must be added to | |||
| the agenda at least 24 hours before the video call is scheduled to begin, except | |||
| in the case of general interest votes moving pre-proposals to phase 1, which can | |||
| be added as the discussion proceeds. Consensus decisions are recorded in meeting | |||
| notes and published just like in-person meeting notes are published. | |||
| notes and published just like meeting notes are published. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
looking at this section/paragraph more broadly, this seems to be including full-group VC meetings together with github (and now subgroups), so since we are now basically including VC above, this paragraph should be reworked a little more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you give me more specifically on what would be good to rework? In general having all polls in video meetings having a 24-hour notice, and being published in the notes seems like good practice. Or do you mean that you prefer that this is moved to the section above that talks about meetings only?
process/consensus.md
Outdated
| @@ -87,20 +90,22 @@ We differentiate the following cases: | |||
| three contributors of different affiliations is acceptable as long as there | |||
| is no objection. Consensus will be deemed to not have been reached if | |||
| interested parties did not sign off. At any point in time a contributor can | |||
| request that final consensus be delayed to an in-person meeting. In this | |||
| request that final consensus be delayed to a subgroup, or a CG meeting. In this | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| request that final consensus be delayed to a subgroup, or a CG meeting. In this | |
| request that final consensus be delayed to a subgroup or a CG meeting. In this |
Co-authored-by: Jeff Parsons <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Thomas Lively <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Thomas Lively <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Thomas Lively <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Derek Schuff <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Thomas Lively <[email protected]>
Thanks for the review, It looks like you're not a fan of the Oxford comma, I see that other reviewers aren't too so I've accepted the suggestions. :) |
Co-authored-by: Thomas Lively <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Conrad Watt <[email protected]>
| meeting. | ||
| collaborators to form a small group, or use the subgroup if one relevant to the | ||
| proposal exists. Gauging online consensus in the small group is left up to the | ||
| champion or in some cases the subgroup chair. Gauging consensus at a subgroup meeting is |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"in some cases" still seems underspecified. Should we just say that either the champion or relevant subgroup chair can declare consensus for online discussions?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the issue is that 'small groups' are not always subgroups, maybe it would be better to say that champion is responsible if it is a subgroup (subgroup maybe takes precedence over 'small group'). TBH, I don't know if we really use 'small group' concept in practice.
| left to the chair or co-chairs of that subgroup. If a small group is unable to reach | ||
| consensus online or at a subgroup meeting, consensus can be sought at an in-person | ||
| or online CG meeting. When a proposal is near maturity the champion shall bring it | ||
| to a meeting and seek wider consensus on open design points and contended issues. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| to a meeting and seek wider consensus on open design points and contended issues. | |
| to a meeting and seek wider consensus on open design questions and contentious issues. |
| @@ -58,8 +60,8 @@ online, either on GitHub repositories under the WebAssembly organization or in | |||
| official video calls. In the latter case, the consensus vote must be added to | |||
| the agenda at least 24 hours before the video call is scheduled to begin, except | |||
| in the case of general interest votes moving pre-proposals to phase 1, which can | |||
| be added as the discussion proceeds. Consensus decisions are recorded in meeting | |||
| notes and published just like in-person meeting notes are published. | |||
| be added as the discussion proceeds. Consensus decisions are recorded in the | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The paragraph above includes references to video call meetings, (as opposed to "in-person meetings" as the preceding "consensus at meetings" section used to talk about). But now video calls are added to the preceding section as official meetings.
So I think this paragraph should now say something like the following:
"It is critical that work progresses between full-CG meetings: agreed-upon
designs need to move forward, and new ideas need to reach some level of maturity
before being discussed in a full meeting. To that end, this group can reach consensus
online, either on GitHub repositories, or in smaller groups."
That leaves out the part about adding votes to the agenda 24 hours in advance. I guess that should move to the "consensus at meetings" section above.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe we should even rename this section, since now it covers Github and small groups, but not VC meetings?
|
@dtig I just noticed that this is still open. do you want to take a crack at finishing it off? |
Consensus.md previously drew a distinction between in-person and online consensus, but this did not accurately represent the status quo where online CG meetings are just as official as in-person CG meetings. Update the document to instead draw a distinction between "informal" consensus (i.e. consensus that does not require a poll) and formal consensus. Move the section on informal consensus to be first, since it describes when formal consensus is necessary or not. This change is similar to and subsumes #1418.
Consensus.md previously drew a distinction between in-person and online consensus, but this did not accurately represent the status quo where online CG meetings are just as official as in-person CG meetings. Update the document to instead draw a distinction between "informal" consensus (i.e. consensus that does not require a poll) and formal consensus. Move the section on informal consensus to be first, since it describes when formal consensus is necessary or not. This change is similar to and subsumes #1418.
The consensus document currently implies that consensus can only be reached at an in-person meeting, this is out of date as we regularly use the same consensus process for online CG, and Subgroup meetings. Updating the document to reflect the current process.