On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 1:09 AM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de> wrote:
> Am 12.02.2021 um 05:16 schrieb Chris Murphy
> I think you do want the Working Group to be the voting members, as it
> is a FESCo subcommittee. That way it's clear who makes decisions, and
> who are expected to show up for regular meetings.
I am just trying to suggest a practicable and viable way forward in the current obviously
difficult situation. And I think it is currently best to stick to the existing procedures
and rules for the time being. Once we are sailing on safe ground again, we may need to
make more workable adjustments.
With regard to voting, our Governance Charter explicitly states:
"The Server Working Group strives to work on consensus and only vote on things where
it’s clear people aren’t going to be convinced to agree. … at least three Working Group
members must be present. … Votes are accepted by all participants in the meeting (not just
those of Working Group members), so the community is highly encouraged to join. … "
I understand this to mean that not only WG members vote, but also the
"community", without distinction, which in our case would/could be the SIG.
I agree you need to follow the current governance. And it's up to the
Server Working Group under that governance to decide whether/how to
> We did talk about the question of member removal when redoing
> Workstation WG governance a year ago. I took the position that it
> didn't need a written procedure. Just ask. If that fails (I mean
> honestly, who would say no if asked to resign?) then you can file a
> private FESCo ticket and they can deal with it.
I am sceptical whether a "private ticket" is the right way to go. It is not
very consensual and not very community-based.
A normal ticket is OK too. There's nothing wrong with using a private
ticket to notify FESCo of something that is in their direct domain.
The ensuing FESCo meeting will be public and logged. Point is, I don't
think membership removal is a major concern that needs to go into the
But I agree with establishing as few rules as possible so as not to
You can establish your own meeting rules, independent of the
governance doc. That way you have norms, guidelines, rules to follow,
but they're easier to refresh as required without having to redo the
governance and get it approved. One possible convention is the chair
proposes those meeting rules when they first take up the gavel. It's a
simple majority vote, so the WG can settle it independently.
What follows from these considerations? @Chris Murphy, what do you
* Should we propose to FESCo to form the Working Group with all 19 existing members and
interested parties (and shut down or ignore the SIG, at least for the time being)?
I'm not sure it's either SIG or WG. It's probably both.
It's difficult to get 19 people to agree on something, and I expect
this translates into less consensus and more voting to decide things.
And to go around the room to get opinions, you'll need some fairly
strict time limits. If everyone gets just 1 minute to talk, it's 19
responses taking 19 minutes. That's if you don't talk all at once, and
if you do talk all at once, like is common on IRC, while that's less
time (maybe) it's now a reading bandwidth problem.
Also the governance says you need at least three present at a meeting
to make decisions. That's compatible with a WG made of 6, but it's a
small quorum for a group of 19.
I don't see it as a problem to have a SIG as the larger group, with
the WG being consistently available and comprising the voting members.
It makes the WG the core group working consistently to make the
Edition what it is, and ensuring it's produced and meeting your
* Should we propose to FESCo to form the Working Group with the
existing active members and the interested ones "that have been showing persistent
and high-quality contribution"? And who could that be?
I agree with your assessment at the outside of this thread, that it
should involve a discussion with FESCo and Council. There's been a
long period of stagnation and logjam and it's probably ideal to get
WG, FESCo, Council on board with that reboot as a full effort rather
than just expecting the Server WG to self-boot.
I think we need to come up with a workable solution quickly and
should not spend a lot more of time on ourselves.
A project needs people (a limited resource) to get things done, but
not just any people, it needs committed people for consistency and
reliability. Conversely, people need a project with a vision they have
a shared interest in, so they know what they are committing their
limited time to.