Clean up 3-way decision

[frivoal]

See #1009 for rationale

---

Preview | Diff

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Clean up 3-way decision at end of Charter Refinement, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Merge 1012 and 1011

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Subtopic: Clean up 3-way decision at end of Charter Refinement
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//pull/1012
<fantasai> florian: There are series of change suggestions from Ted, and I think only the latest is current...
<fantasai> ... I think they're attempting to be editorial, but not convinced they're better.
<fantasai> ... Anyway
<fantasai> ... This decision at the end of Charter Refinement is complicated because it's 3-way decision.
<fantasai> ... You can object to one of them, and if you do, and council agrees with you, which of the other two happens?
<fantasai> ... So this makes it a bit special. Tries to enable a simple path.
<fantasai> ... Maybe I stop talking and we just read it.
<Ian> q+
<fantasai> -> https://github.com//pull/1012/files
<fantasai> florian: Note one thing that doesn't change, if someone objects to start of AC Review, nothing special happens -- just batch the FO with the rest.
<fantasai> ... othrewise some options
<plh> ack ian
<fantasai> Ian: I'm questioning whether it's really 3 choices or 2
<fantasai> ... 3 is creating some complexity
<fantasai> ... Nature of 2 of the choices is very similar: either going to proceed or not proceeding with proposal
<fantasai> ... Choice is about the proposa.
<fantasai> ... Extending is a process-related proposal, consequence separate from proposal.
<fantasai> ... Extending is not the same type of thing
<fantasai> florian: They're not the same type, but about the same thing.
<fantasai> ... If Team decides to extend, and someone object, what does that mean?
<fantasai> ... Does it mean "it's good enough, send it to the AC" or "it's never going to have consensus, give up already, let's not waste our resources continuing"
<fantasai> ... Maybe it will get consensus because too many people gave up engaging
<fantasai> ... But that's not good
<fantasai> ... [more examples]
<fantasai> ... [explains the PR]
<fantasai> ... Idk that this is perfect, but I think we need to do something here.
<plh> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/process/1012/5f0a694...frivoal:0b9b15a.html#charter-development
<fantasai> plh: The GH changes are hard to read. If you look at the diff it's a lot easier to understand.
<fantasai> TallTed: Doesn't show the suggestions. I was trying to make clearer the fork in the road.
<fantasai> ... fantasai's comment was saying we give the Team a choice
<fantasai> -> https://github.com//pull/1012/files#r2039908853
<fantasai> florian: I agree that the last suggestion means the same as what I intend.
<fantasai> ... earlier ones maybe not
<Ian> q+
<fantasai> plh: How do ppl feel? do we merge with the suggestions, or ppl unhappy?
<plh> ack ian
<fantasai> Ian: I remain uncomfortable. Spidey sense about the complication. If we want to extend by a month and someone FOs, then have 2 months of FO handling.
<TallTed> q+
<fantasai> Ian: This complicates the situation. Should say either go to AC review or not; or extend or not. Two decisions.
<florian> q+
<fantasai> ... Too complicated for general case.
<plh> ack fantasai
<plh> q+ fantasai
<plh> ack ted
<plh> ack tallted
<fantasai> TallTed: Sympathetic with Ian, but the reason for documents like this is to cover the edge cases.
<fantasai> ... If the edge cases arrive, this is how we deal.
<Ian> q+
<fantasai> ... Contracts are there for when someone stops being reasonable.
<plh> ack florian
<Ian> fantasai: Council path is not necessarily a 2-month path. The Council could short-circuit
<plh> fantasai: the council is not necessarily a 3-months path, it could be short-circuit
<fantasai> florian: Agree some complexity. But we have difference of textual complexity and situational complexity.
<fantasai> ... Some text that is easy to apply.
<fantasai> ... But without it we can be put into awkward situations
<fantasai> ... which can be more intricate.
<fantasai> ... So trade-off between real complexity vs textual complexity, prefer the latter
<plh> ack fantasai
<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to react to TallTed
<plh> ack ian
<fantasai> Ian: Ted, I take your point about why contracts exist.
<fantasai> ... But how we write it may be different from the topics it covers.
<fantasai> ... If it were written so that 99% case were covered simply, and addendum for the complicated cases
<fantasai> ... E.g. add that you can object to an extension
<florian> q+
<fantasai> ... Cover the edge case after the ordinary case
<plh> ack florian
<fantasai> florian: Formally objecting to abandoning or extending is not going to be uncommon anyway
<fantasai> ... so the whole paragraph is an exception
<fantasai> Ian: We have this lighter-weight objection mechanism with 5 people. Remains in place. But bit about extension be dealt with separately after that. That will happen approximately 0% of the time.
<fantasai> ... weaving 3rd option complicates reading of the usual case
<fantasai> plh: Here's what I propose, Ian, if you can live with it.
<fantasai> ... If we merge this PR as-is, and if we have better wording during wide review, we can come back
<fantasai> florian: Yes. There's an editorial question. And there's a substantive one.
<fantasai> ... Sure, we can take various editorial options.
<fantasai> ... But there's a quesiton of what options to people have.
<fantasai> ... I think the existence of these options will make reality simpler.
<fantasai> ... So I agree with plh, let's merge the PR and then work on editorial improvements.
<fantasai> Ian: I'm ok with that approach.
<fantasai> plh: So let's merge 1012 and 1011, with TallTed's suggestion and typo fix
<fantasai> florian: Ok, so then our follow-up actions would be look at editorial improvements, and ensure sufficient announcements
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge 1012 and 1011