Does the Council need the ability to defer decisions to someone else under some (rare) circumstances?

[dwsinger]

On rare occasions, Council may realize that they need an employee, officer, or even the Board, to make a final decision (e.g. if a legal question arises, Counsel or the Board may be the best to issue the decision).

We should consider adding something like "The Chair may propose, and a Council may agree by majority decision, to ask that the formal decision on the specific question in hand be made and issued by (a) an officer; (b) or an employee; (c) or by the Board."

[frivoal]

I agree that there's an need for something other than the Council to handle legal questions. But I'd make it a hard rule, not at the discretion of the chair. I've proposed doing so in https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/131. I encourage you to read that issue.

Other than legal questions though, do you see a reason to enable the council to defer to someone else? So far, I don't.

[dwsinger]

I'm aware of issue 131; I am concerned that there may be circumstances that we currently don't imagine, in which deferral to someone else is appropriate, and that no, or only a tight specific, provision of such an escape may leave us in an awkward spot. We don't have to take advantage of it, but if we find we want it and don't have provision…

Legal is only one case. I can see circumstances in which the Council feels that

• a specific person, e.g. the CEO or Counsel, (employee or officer), issue a Decision
• it's more appropriate for a formal authority such as the Board issue the Decision

so, it's a concern. I hope it's minor, and I am not insistent.

[fantasai]

Agree with @dwsinger that there should be an escape hatch, and--aside from legal questions which should be pre-empted by W3C Council in the first place and not reach the Council--it should require a supermajority of the Council.

Also, the Council should be allowed to delegate to a group of specific people, not limited to either one person or the Board.

[TallTed]

@fantasai --

aside from legal questions which should be pre-empted by W3C Council in the first place and not reach the Council

I am guessing that the "W3C Council" should be some other entity, perhaps "W3C [legal] Counsel"?

[dwsinger]

The AB agreed at the August F2F

[jwrosewell]

A "supermajority" would need to be defined in the W3C Process document.

[dwsinger]

@jwrosewell I agree, it would, but thinking about it, I don't think we should use supermajority. If a majority of the Council feels that the Council should not make a decision, yet that falls short of a supermajority, and we then convene the Council, there is a good chance we'll have a decision in which the majority abstains or even renounces – which would be a weak result. So I conclude a majority decision to defer would be enough.

Having said that, if a majority feels that they should defer, I have to believe the rest would tend to concur (i.e. "ok, we won't force you to make a decision") so it'll tend to tip pretty naturally into a consensus decision.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Council Ability to Defer Decisions.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Subtopic: Council Ability to Defer Decisions
<fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/618
<wseltzer> zakim, permaqueue?
<Zakim> I don't understand your question, wseltzer.
<florian> PR here: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/621
<jeff> ... the AB discussed 618 and felt we should be able to defer
<jeff> Florian: I provided a minimal and simple PR
<jeff> ... but David pointed out maybe we want only simple majority
<jeff> ... also minor editorial question
<dsinger> q+
<jeff> ... have people reviewed?
<TallTed> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2022Aug/0002.html
<jeff> ... merge as is or ask AB about the type of majority
<jeff> David: I'm happy to merge and carry on conversations
<jeff> ... but what if a majority says not to have Council but not a supermajority
<jeff> ... so a majority wants to defer; but without a supermajority we can't defer
<jeff> ... so we have a Council when a majority doesn't want to be there
<jeff> ... unlikely...
<jeff> ... a majority which drive a supermajority
<jeff> ... but why allow such a case which would not work
<jeff> ... not useful but could create a hole
<jeff> Fantasai: Supermajority provides assurance that Councils would not be delegated lightly
<TallTed> q+
<jeff> ... while not likely, the higher bar for delegation makes Council process more in control of community
<jeff> ... if a large number doesn't want to be involved
<jeff> ... you have the same problem with 50%-1
<jeff> ... at that point Council will have trouble regardless
<florian> q+ to make a proposal
<jeff> ... so the small threshold between majority and supermajority is not a problem
<jeff> ... simple majority makes it too easy to send it elsewhere
<jeff> TallTed: A bit tangential, but...
<jeff> ... the word defer should be delegation
<jeff> ... defer means time; delegation means personnel
<jeff> David: PR uses delegation
<jeff> Florian: Because I already heard from Ted.
<jeff> Ted: Need to fix title of issue
<jeff> Florian: PR already has suggestion
<Zakim> florian, you wanted to make a proposal
<jeff> ... this PR is a PR into the DF branch; not the full process
<jeff> ... I suggest we take it as is
<jeff> ... raise the question back to AB
<jeff> ... since we have an AB resolution
<dsinger> q+ to support Florian, and (minor) response
<jeff> ... so let's move it, and send back to AB for input
<fantasai> s/raise/and unless everyone is convinced by Elika, raise/
<jeff> David: SGTM
<jeff> ... taking Elika's point, you might want a supermajority to take it up
<jeff> ... but let's pull it and continue to ponder
<jeff> Florian: Proposed resolution. Land this into DF branch and notify AB
<jeff> Fantasai: Objections?
<jeff> ... resolved.

[frivoal]

This is resolved by the AB, and is now folded in in the https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/director-free/ branch, which will be proposed for merging soon.