Ambiguity about (super) majority thresholds: of those voting, or of those eligible to vote? about w3process

[TallTed]

For (1), Upon appointment, the Chair(s) are subject to ratification by secret ballot, requiring approval by two thirds of the elected participants.

[fantasai]

For completion, here's the other options:

Upon appointment, the Chair(s) are subject to ratification by secret ballot, requiring approval by two thirds of the elected AB participants.

Upon appointment, the Chair(s) are subject to ratification by secret ballot, requiring approval by two thirds of the elected participants of the AB.

[TallTed]

For (3), each dismissal is decided by simple majority of those voicing a preference

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Clarifying supermajority votes, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Accept Ted's proposal in https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/838#issuecomment-2022931990

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Subtopic: Clarifying supermajority votes
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/838
<fantasai> florian: This relates to what Chris was talking about earlier: when we talk about a majority, what do we mean? Of the people who voted? The people who could vote? how do we count absentees or those who explicitly abstain?
<fantasai> ... I did an audit of the Process
<fantasai> ... 2 are unambiguous
<fantasai> ... 4 are ambiguous
<fantasai> ... The one about TAG appointments is probably most contentious, and might want to deal with later
<fantasai> ... but others not so hard, so let's look
<fantasai> florian: 1st one is borderline, not quite ambiguous
<fantasai> ... about chairs of the AB being subject to ratification by 2/3 "of AB"
<fantasai> ... could say "of elected AB participants" to clarify e.g. is the chair included or whatever
<TallTed> q+
<fantasai> plh: how do we count the CEO?
<plh> ack ta
<fantasai> cwilso: not a member of the AB
<fantasai> TallTed: sentence as written is differently broken, "upon appointment" is in the wrong place
<fantasai> ... would shift and add a comma
<fantasai> fantasai: is "AB elected participants" or can we rely on member?
<fantasai> florian: Chair might not be an elected participant
<fantasai> plh: Proposal to accept the changes we're suggesting here?
<fantasai> fantasai: "AB elected participants" feels weird, reads like "AB-elected participants"
<fantasai> TallTed: can AB be implied, as for chair?
<plh> "Upon appointments, the Chair(s) are subject to ratification by secret ballot by two thirds of the elected participants of the AB."
<fantasai> florian: I think you're right we can go for "elected particpants"
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Accept Ted's proposal in https://github.com//issues/838#issuecomment-2022931990
<fantasai> florian: wrt "
<fantasai> each dismissal is decided by simple majority of those not abstaining.
<fantasai> apparently English-speakers think that abstaining doesn't include people who don't vote
<TallTed> `each dismissal is decided by simple majority of those voicing a preference`
<fantasai> which is different from French meaning
<fantasai> cwilso: ????
<fantasai> florian: Quick check of dictionary seems to uphold that point
<fantasai> cwilso: So rather than arguing what it means, then we should make it more explicit
<TallTed> `each dismissal is decided by simple majority of those voicing a preference; a tie fails`
<fantasai> florian: if the number of "for" ballots vs "against" ballots are equal, in my wording it fails, ted's is ambiguous
<plh> "each dismissal is enacted if there are more ballots for than against'
<cwilso> +1
<fantasai> plh: objections?
<fantasai> fantasai: if we're so close that we're tied, probably we should dismiss that person
<fantasai> though that's not fixing an ambiguity :)
<fantasai> florian: Current phrasing is ambiguous, actually, so we need to pick
<TallTed> "each dismissal is enacted if there is at least one more ballot for than against"
<fantasai> "each dismissal is enacted if at least half of the ballots are for than against"
<fantasai> "each dismissal is enacted if at least half of the ballots are for"
<fantasai> there we go :)
<fantasai> s/for/in favor/
<fantasai> florian: You're saying mine is a rephrasing whereas fantasai's is a change?
<TallTed> "each dismissal is enacted if at least half the ballots are in favor."
<cwilso> +1 to Florian's wording
<TallTed> "each dismissal is enacted if more than half the ballots are in favor."
<fantasai> [discussion of whether to address the question of ties]
<fantasai> fantasai: OK with either of Ted's proposals, prefer the 2nd-to-last
<fantasai> A) each dismissal is enacted if at least half the ballots are in favor
<fantasai> B) each dismissal is enacted if more than half the ballots are in favor
<fantasai> florian: Doesn't address the question of explicit abstaining
<fantasai> C) each dismissal is enacted if at least half the non-abstaining ballots are in favor
<florian> C) each dismissal is enacted if there are more ballots for than against
<fantasai> D) each dismissal is enacted if more than half the non-abstaining ballots are in favor
<TallTed> each dismissal is enacted if at least half the ballots expressing a preference are in favor
<fantasai> florian: OK, I'll do a PR with inspiration from these phrasing
<fantasai> ... but want direction: if we reach 50% do we dismiss or not?
<fantasai> fantasai: I think if we're that conflicted about the individual's participation, we should bias to dismiss
<fantasai> ... haven't been dismissing a lot of peope in practice anyway
<fantasai> plh, florian: OK
<fantasai> Next question
<fantasai> florian: Council votes if can't find consensus
<fantasai> ... is it majority of those who could vote? of those who did vote? handlign abstentions?
<fantasai> ... in partice we rarely get participation close to the total number, so basing on that would be bad
<fantasai> ... I think we want phrasing that says "more yes than nos, it passes" and "chair breaks a tie"
<fantasai> plh: wfm, make a PR
<TallTed> +1
<fantasai> Last 2 cases
<fantasai> florian: I listed two which I don't think are ambiguous, if anyone disagrees we can review

[TallTed]

For all votes where abstention (no vote) and/or explicit-neither-yes-nor-no (vote submitted with voiced no preference) is ignored, probably need to be explicit about this ignoring.

[frivoal]

Landed a commit directly for case 1, since we had a resolution with explicit phrasing, and made a PR for case 3 as well as one for case 4.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Disambiguate vote thresholds, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Merge PR 841
• RESOLVED: Merge PR 842
• RESOLVED: Close issue 838, open separate issue wrt TAG appointment

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Subtopic: Disambiguate vote thresholds
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/838
<fantasai> -> https://github.com//pull/841/files
<fantasai> -> https://github.com//pull/842/files
<fantasai> florian: Process discusses various votes, passing by majority or supermajority
<fantasai> ... identified 4 ambiguities
<fantasai> ... I landed the first one based on previous call
<fantasai> ... 2nd one is about TAG, come back to it later
<fantasai> ... 3rd and 4th we agreed on what we mean, and I made 2 PRs to address
<fantasai> ... 3rd about Council dismissal, 4th about Council decision votes
<fantasai> <fantasai> +1
<fantasai> plh: objections to 841?
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR 841
<fantasai> florian: [introduces 842]
<fantasai> plh: objections to merge?
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR 842
<fantasai> florian: With these merged, the only thing remaining is about the TAG. I suggest we spin out into a separate issue and close.
<fantasai> ... that conversation is complicated, better in a separate plae
<fantasai> plh: +1
<fantasai> <fantasai> +1
<TallTed> +1
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Close issue 838, open separate issue wrt TAG appointment

[frivoal]

Sub-issues 1, 3, and 4 have been addressed. The broader discussion of TAG appointments remains open in #809, #810, #811. Relevant parts of this discussion have been reported into #809 (comment).