Require Team to reply with rationale for rejection

[frivoal]

More details about typical motivations can go in /Guide

---

Preview | Diff

[ianbjacobs]

(This requirement to report and provide rationale was also in my proposal.)

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Require Team to reply with rationale for rejection, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Adopt PR 995
• ACTION: Florian to work on Ian's concerns

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Subtopic: Require Team to reply with rationale for rejection
<Ian> +1 to 995
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//pull/995
<fantasai> florian: We already allow Team to say no (for reasons) when AC asks to start Charter Refinement
<fantasai> ... we didn't say the Team has to explain why
<fantasai> ... This PR requires Team to give the rationale
<fantasai> ... We use the verb "reply", which implies that you respond in the same forum that was asked.
<Ian> q+
<plh> ack ian
<fantasai> ... The reason for not needing to broadcast, if someone requests privately, and Team's response is "I'm sorry, your charter is quite terrible, can you try again", then the Team doesn't need to publicly embarrass them.
<fantasai> ... they can make the response public if they want, but not required to
<fantasai> Ian: ...
<fantasai> Ian: If Team formally says no, it goes to Membership for their fuller consideration
<fantasai> florian: If an AC rep formally requests, in private, as an AC rep... you are requiring yourself to tell everyone in public that their charter sucks?
<fantasai> Ian: For me, "formal request" means "I'm asking you to do this, and you are obligated to do this"
<fantasai> ... only reason to have in Process document, otherwise it's just people talking
<fantasai> ... formal request means the answer has to be public
<fantasai> florian: Putting it in the Process is requiring an answer. It doesn't require it to be public.
<fantasai> plh: If we tell the AC that you can ask any Team member, and it puts into a formal process, that's not going to be good
<fantasai> ... if having a formal process, there must be a burden on the Team to follow a formal process
<fantasai> florian: There's 2 things here: formal vs informal, public vs private
<fantasai> ... It is currently possible for Members to make formal objections privately
<fantasai> plh: Yes, but in that case we anonymize the comment but publish it publicly
<fantasai> ... Here you can send a request privately to the Team, and there is no obligation.
<fantasai> florian: We're not saying that any question is such. They have to formally request.
<plh> ack fantasai
<Ian> q+
<plh> ack ian
<plh> fantasai: it is possible to file a formal objection by ask the team
<plh> ... this is not an issue about expecting people to ask privately
<plh> ... a CG can do such request
<plh> ... the reason we did not want to make a requirement to involve the entire Membership
<plh> ... it is since the proposal will need to be refined becuase it can move further
<plh> ... this will create noise that the AC can avoid
<plh> ... so I don't think we should require to be public
<plh> .... if it needs to be made more public, it's always possible by the AC
<plh> ian: I don't want to capture the full range of human interactions
<plh> .... the only case is the worst case scenario: someone strongly disagree with the Team
<plh> ... and want to escalate
<plh> ... the other cases don't need to be captured in the process document
<plh> ... there is agreement a Member can escalate
<plh> florian: but we don't force Members to escalate in order to get a rational
<plh> ... that would be shaming a Member
<plh> ian: that's not reality
<fantasai> florian: I don't see a reason for Team to reply no without rationale.
<fantasai> plh: ...
<fantasai> plh: I'm fine with the PR as-is, but I might play with them being informal.
<Ian> q+
<fantasai> florian: If someone says "I'm AC rep of Q, and want to request the Team start Charter Refinement" ...
<plh> ack ian
<fantasai> plh: Yes, would interpret that as a formal request
<fantasai> Ian: Gap that AC can register formal objection, which starts the next process
<fantasai> ... I asked the Team to do something, they said no privately, I want to formally object. Other people don't know to object until the first objection
<fantasai> florian: If you have replied publicly (not required), any 5 Members can say "I hate this"
<fantasai> ... if you reply privately, say no, then nobody else knows to object, but they can publicise and ask for help objecting
<fantasai> Ian: Only becomes an official decision unless it's archived decision, otherwise it didn't happen.
<fantasai> florian: Precedent: In the case of AC Appeal, an AC rep can write to Team asking to appeal. They don't have to CC anyone.
<fantasai> Ian: That request doesn't exist until Team records that they got a request.
<fantasai> Ian: Recap. There's a private formal negotiation, and ppl might be satisfied with that. Always good to provide rationale, whether in Process or not.
<fantasai> ... AC rep can ask for more, but they have to request that the Team initiate that process by announcing this decision to the Membership.
<fantasai> florian: ok, I want to think about that. But continue to think that anything we do here is not in contradiction with this PR.
<fantasai> Ian: Sounds good.
<fantasai> Ian: I can live with this extra bit of requiring rationale.
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Adopt PR 995
<fantasai> ACTION: Florian to work on Ian's concerns
<fantasai> plh: How are we going to finish if we're taking this long on each one?