Propose amendment to the charter that simplifies the election process

[elf-pavlik]

As much as possible we could rely on tools provided by W3C, this year run is being tracked here:

• CG chair election 2025 #26

My preference would be to at least:

• remove CG participants snapshot before election starts
• remove one vote per affiliation requirement which currently requires a lot of extra steps

If those features are widely needed across W3C CGs I'm happy to bring it up to https://github.com/w3c/cg-program

[csarven]

remove one vote per affiliation requirement which currently requires a lot of extra steps

I don't find that to be a good justification. If you have issues with tooling, change tooling.

So, strong -1 to removing that requirement and there are strong reasons to keeping it in. Please see prior discussions on that but here is the gist of it:

All "significant" elections at W3C in fact limits affiliations to one ballot. This ensures that affiliations with several participants don't influence elections. And, the Solid CG charter in fact tries to align with the common practice at W3C.

[elf-pavlik]

All "significant" elections at W3C

@csarven I would like to understand better what special powers CG chairs have, that a set of preventive measures is required in elections to minimise possibility of electing someone who might end up abusing those special powers?

My train of mind is if those requirements are common across many W3C CGs, it will be a worth while to work with W3C Program CG to make it available to all the CGs that need those features. Unless Solid CG is a special snowflake.

[csarven]

The power of the position does not matter. What matters is that the election stays fair. The chair election is about representation. The preventative measures exist to protect the representative nature of the vote and limit disproportionate influence from organisations with multiple participants.

[elf-pavlik]

limit disproportionate influence from organisations with multiple participants

What influence CG chair can excert that is different than influence of a regular participant?

Quick search in https://www.w3.org/community/solid/charter/

All decisions made by the group should be considered resolved unless and until new information becomes available or unless reopened at the discretion of the Chairs.

I see chair can reopen a decision, at the same time any participant can make case that new information is available.
I don't see significant influence given to CG chairs in this case.

Chairs may propose amendments to the charter by asking for a call for principled objections to the new charter. If, after a period of two weeks, no principled objections have been presented by a current participant of the group, the new charter is approved.

In this case I would consider changing it that any participant can propoes (PR) amendments, without needing to find a chair to propose it.

EDIT

In the case of interim vacancy, the remaining chairs may appoint a co-chair for each open seat, hold an election for the same, or wait until the next election, at their discretion.

Possibly also this one, but if election is lightweight we could change it to vacancy automatically trigger the election.

[elf-pavlik]

I also notice:

• Consider making WBS questionnaire more widely accessible to CGs w3c/cg-program#24

Which could be used to track demand for those features. @csarven I'm going to join next Program CG meeting https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a8879cc6-e888-4a34-8665-f5f558c51e66/

If you like, I could try to shortly invite chairs of other CGs to take a look at that issue.

[VirginiaBalseiro]

I object to this proposal. Chairs can exert significant influence on the direction of the group through agenda-setting, prioritization of topics, facilitation of discussions, and interpretation of process. Chairs can also ignore process, act in an unbalanced manner towards agenda and work items, prioritize their own preferences, etc. (case in point: right now!), so avoiding concentrated influence of shared interests is important.

[csarven]

I've led the initiative for CG elections - from chartering, writing code, and developing processes - to a point where the CG can take advantage of the WBS system as much as possible. Please note that not everything is super automated and polished. We were not paid to get things to this point.

The part about one vote per affiliation in the Solid CG charter is borrowed from the W3C Process' Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Elections:

When there is a vote, each Member in Good Standing (or group of related Members) may submit one ballot that ranks candidates in the Member’s preferred order.

While you may snark at the work we've done as imperfect or that it requires additional work, doing that work 1) helped us re-use W3C infrastructure, and 2) got us closer to a process that is widely known and thought out (which can only be a good thing).

I can't imagine why one would object to that!

[elf-pavlik]

Do you think this is something applicable to any W3C CG?
In that case w3c/cg-program#24 might be a good place to work on it.

Or do you see Solid CG somehow special and that we need more specific chair election process than an average W3C CG?

[VirginiaBalseiro]

I wouldn’t use the word “special”, but I do think it makes sense to improve the process wherever we can. The whole point of chairing and participating in a CG, especially since it’s volunteer work, is to help things run better for everyone involved. That’s why I’m having a hard time understanding the strong resistance to improvements and progress.

[elf-pavlik]

@csarven I don't see your last comment any more

https://w3c.github.io/cg-charter/CGCharter.html

Participants vote. Participants have 21 days to vote for a single candidate, but this period ends as soon as all participants have voted. The individual who receives the most votes, no two from the same organisation, is elected chair. In case of a tie, RFC2777 is used to break the tie. An elected Chair may appoint co-Chairs.

I think this is just another reason to focus effort on w3c/cg-program#24 instead of consume limited co-chairs time (and W3C staff time) for semi-manual data entry.

[csarven]

The current CG charter remains in effect. As chair, you are expected to follow and uphold it. If you help organise chair elections, you are expected to respect the charter. If you do not wish to uphold it, as your comments suggest, please consider a different role in the CG so that those who do want to follow the charter can take responsibility.

In the meantime, please make it clear to the CG as widely as possible (e.g., on the mailing list) that you chose not to follow the charter.

[elf-pavlik]

In the meantime, please make it clear to the CG as widely as possible (e.g., on the mailing list) that you chose not to follow the charter.

I haven't made PR yet, I plan to propose those changes after the election. 2025 tracking issue doesn't assume those changes being made:

• CG chair election 2025 #26

[csarven]

You're responding to the wrong thing when you say you'll PR. I'm talking about the fact that you should announce the fact that you did not follow the charter in this election, and you are telling me that you want to propose a change to the charter that can be effective for the next election.

The other fact of the matter is that you did not provide a good justification as to why you want the CG charter to move away from a sensible practice. You seem to have an issue with the semi-automated tooling, and you are pitching that as a justification to change the charter. The charter does not mandate any particular tool. The tooling is plumbing and a consequence. That is not a reason to change the charter. That is a reason to improve the tooling if it is deemed to be inadequate.

Do you have a strong argument why there should not be one vote per affiliation?

Do you have a strong argument as to why we should not have a list of eligible voters before election?

Because there are strong arguments in favour of those things.

That said, https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2023-11-08.md#solid-cg-chair-election-procedure :

• SC: The idea is that, by default we take the participant with lowest W3C ID (which is incremental number)
• SC: We will offer all affiliations the chance to change their designee.
• SC: In the end, we will give a list of eligible voters to W3C staff

And there was an announcement the public mailing list at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-solid/2023Nov/0075.html

That worked out fine.

The CG charter came to be at solid/process#323 and there were multiple rounds of reviews and discussions in the Solid CG, and then approved by the CG. The group felt that one vote per affiliation is the right way to go. The CG participants did not choose the tooling, the participants chose a way forward that is aligned with the most widely known W3C Process.

I feel that you are yet again prioritising your preferences over the group's best interest.

[VirginiaBalseiro]

Throughout the history of voting, the process has never been perfect. In the beginning, people gathered in a room and raised their hands, not the most convenient system. But no one said, “Let’s abandon elections altogether.” Instead, they asked, “What if we tried sending ballots by mail?” and so on. Step by step, the process evolved because people looked for ways to improve it, not discard it.