-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 181
Making the Council's short circuit a little more flexible #852
Copy link
Copy link
Closed
Labels
AB DecisionClosing this issue was done with an explicit AB decisionClosing this issue was done with an explicit AB decisionClosed: AcceptedThe issue has been addressed, though not necessarily based on the initial suggestionThe issue has been addressed, though not necessarily based on the initial suggestionFO/CouncilIssues related to the W3C Council and Formal Objection HandlingIssues related to the W3C Council and Formal Objection Handling
Milestone
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
AB DecisionClosing this issue was done with an explicit AB decisionClosing this issue was done with an explicit AB decisionClosed: AcceptedThe issue has been addressed, though not necessarily based on the initial suggestionThe issue has been addressed, though not necessarily based on the initial suggestionFO/CouncilIssues related to the W3C Council and Formal Objection HandlingIssues related to the W3C Council and Formal Objection Handling
Type
Fields
Give feedbackNo fields configured for issues without a type.
In order to save time in certain cases, the Council has the ability to adopt a recommendation from the Team prior to being fully formed and to having a chance to debate the matter. This documented here: https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20231103/#council-short-circuit
It requires unanimity for two reasons:
Thinking about this again, I think we could use something less drastic that unanimity, and still accomplish these goals. We could require:
The first criteria would continue to ensure this decision is back up by a large enough number of people. The second criteria continues to ensure that if any single person thinks we should talk about it, then we talk about it.
What this gains us is that we're not blocked if a couple of people are on vacation or otherwise non responsive.