Chair appointment community involvement, transparency, enabling objections and handling them

[frivoal]

When team appointments of Chairs are done as part of a new Charter, AC Reps can Formally Object as part of the Charter review. In case of a Charter Extension, which may at the same time change the Chair, AC Reps can initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal. That seems enough to provide an opportunity for oversight, but there’s currently no way to Object to a change of Chair at other times. Maybe we should allow Formal Objections to Chair changes, or some other process, such as ratification by the AB.

[dwsinger]

I think in the process re-write, we're saying that the AC can appeal "any decision". An AC appeal seems awfully heavy for objecting to a chair choice, and humiliating for the chair. I think we need to trust the team to pick decent chairs, or to work with the unhappy people quietly.

[TzviyaSiegman]

I agree with @dwsinger. AC is likely not well-informed about who/why a chair is chosen as well. Not all decisions are well-made by committee.

[dwsinger]

Noted that this seems orthogonal to director-free; request to move this to the general process.

[dwsinger]

It should be clear that making public, formal, complaints, about specific people (chairs) should be very much a last resort, and that more discreet methods should be tried first (talk to the team)

[frivoal]

@dwsinger, is your proposal to add a sentence near the definition of Formal Objections saying that any decision can be objected to, followed by some indication that people should attempt more diplomatic approaches first?

If so, I can try and draft that.

[michaelchampion]

There has to be a way to hold the team accountable for bad decisions, e.g. chair selection. Of course we hope these cases are rare, and yes people will be embarrassed, but we can’t assume the team will always do the right thing and that the membership has no recourse if they don’t.

The appeal path would seem to be: first to the CEO, then to the AC (current system) or Board (once a legal entity is established). Appeal to the AC or Board is indeed heavyweight and there should be a high bar on getting such an appeal heard (e.g. the 5% of the membership explicitly requesting a decision be overturned, and language strongly suggesting diplomacy/mediation first), but it needs to exist as a check on the power of the Team.

[dwsinger]

Let's see if I can clear up.

a) Yes, any formal decision can have a formal objection.

b) The recourse process if you don't like a chair appointment is (a) to talk to the team member for that group, and escalate up the team as needed; (b) to raise an FO, and if that doesn't result in satisfaction, you can (c) raise an AC appeal against the FO decision. Ouch.

[frivoal]

Made a pull request to attempt to address this: #299

Feedback welcome.

[dwsinger]

(see the Process Call logs for July 24th 2019, probably https://www.w3.org/2019/07/24-w3process-minutes.html)

[dwsinger]

(we expect to clean this up as part of the Director-free rewrite)

[dwsinger]

florian: Came out of Director-free discussion
... but was a broader topic
... Not clear right now it's not clear if possible to object to change in chair if done outside of regular chartering
... We considered that objecting to a chair is not particularly great method, better to just discuss with Team
... but should still have an objection process if needed

(see associated Pull Request #299)
florian: So the suggestion was "if there's a decision, you can object to it"
... generally

dsinger: My comment was that it needs to be clear that you can object to any formal decision
... but don't have formal decision formally defined

florian: Said that you could object to XXX Decisions, which are all defined
... all of these can be objected to

plh: We have to be careful here.
... In the past, you can object to any decision made by the Director
... including chair appointment, because that was a Director decision
... CEO Decision is a bit weird, you want to be a bit careful
... Also today we have a Steering Group that makes decisions, you can't really object to those
... Your scope is a little bit too broad

jeff_: On the issue of objecting to chair appointments...
... I'm trying to parse what htis issue is
... do we believe that in the current Process as written that it's possible to object to chair appointments?
... Is it disallowed? Or not clear how to do it mechanically?

florian: Unclear
... Last time discussed in the AB, some sense that it shoudl be allowed
... So trying to make it clear

jeff_: I'm generally not infavor of adding text to clarify that some case is allowed when it's already allowed unless it's become an issue of some sort
... Is there a case that people wanted to object to a new chair but weren't sure how or somethng?

florian: It was surfaced during the discussion of Director-free
... This was soemthing Director did, that some other method would be needed
... Raised question of how to object to it

jeff_: Another question
... Do we think the Team has the authority to appoint a new chair if one steps down?

florian: In Director-free then yes, Team does this
... Because Team has less theoretical authority than great Director, what about if AC disagrees

plh: Distinction between appeal and objection?

florian: ...

plh: Why would AC have option to appeal but not object?
... We need to be clear of who can object and who can appeal

florian: Appeal isn't a general-purpose mechanism for everything
... It can be invoked in limited circumstances
... More cases there's formal objections
... and there are some other things where there's nothing

<jeff_> https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#WGArchiveMinorityViews
florian: Trying to make so have formal objections in those cases

jeff_: Unsure about formal objections in this round of Process
... The formal objection definition is mostly about technical arguments
... technical arguments to change the chair?
... Lots of stuff which could be cleaned up
... Not sure why pick this particular issue
... Don't disagree with the logic, but not obvious worth doing at this point.

florian: Issue was discovered during Director-free discussions
... found to be more general than Director issues
... No particular urgency to fi

jeff_: Would need to do some significant clean up of this section in general
... This section should say "Decisions are made in W3C by WG, Team, whatever"
... and each decision can be objected to

florian: Isn't that what I'm doing?

fantasai: No, you're not defining everything up front like jeff suggested

jeff_: I think we need to substantially reframe decisions in Director-free
... If opening that box of code, let's do the rewrite there.

florian: So Defer until Director-free?

plh: I'm also supposed to represent again the formal objection situation in August
... If we're changing what Formal Objection is, have to take that into account
... If we say Team, and can object to decisions by the Team,
... Does this mean the Council will also have to look at those issues?
... That would potentially increase the issues that Council has to decide
... And what if person involved in Council?

jeff_: That's one of several reasons why ? had some conclusions that weren't thought through

dsinger: So punt this and clean it up as part of Director-free branch

RESOLUTION: Work on this as part of Director-free branch

[samuelweiler]

As a point of comparison, I don't think the IETF allows appeals (their formal escalation process, comparable to W3C's Formal Objections) re: chair appointment, and I have not seen that be a problem. When the party responsible for appointing and replacing chairs does not act to remedy a problem, the community will start filing appeals about that chair's decisions. Even though those appeals are nominally about individual decisions, the memo will get through.

I don't think we need to add process for Formally Objecting to chair selection.

[mnot]

@samuelweiler incorrect; see this statement and the referenced spec.

Basically, any decision in the IETF can be appealed.

[samuelweiler]

@mnot, Thank you for the correction.

[plehegar]

2 things on this front:

1- Is appointing Chair(s) a team decision?
the director-branch free says "The Team appoints (and re-appoints) Chairs for all groups". Since we're making the term "Team decision" to carry a specific meaning, may be worth clarifying?

2- if we go down this road, not replacing a co-chair should be subject to appeal as well. Since those things do get announced as well (see example), not sure if we need to be that explicit in the Process.

[cwilso]

Would be interested to understand where the authority (and ability to object) goes for UN-appointing (that is, removing) chairs, as well.

[plehegar]

mu understanding is that, since the Director appoints, he gets the right to nominate new Chairs at any time, which includes removing one (co-)chair. With Director-free, it would be the team. Again, this would get announced, thus subject to objection/appeal, like in my point 2 above.

[cwilso]

Yes, but pretty much every decision is put through a poll, with an option to Formally Object, except for chair appointments outside of the charter process. (That includes chair removals, which to be fair, should probably have at least a formal objection process as well except in cases of CEPC violation.)

[dwsinger]

I think team-appoint works well up until the point we have controversy, either multiple volunteers, or a controversial appointment. An FO about a specific person is kinda public and "in your face", and having the team arbitrate between volunteers less than ideal. Perhaps we need (a) to use the AB's ability to have in-camera sessions as a way to handle sensitive objections and (b) holding votes - indicative or definitive - to settle chairing conflicts when there are multiple volunteers?

[cwilso]

Process should include something like "With input from the WG members, Team appoints chairs..." as well as enabling objections to chair appointments. I would suggest changing the title of this issue to "More inclusive chair appointment: asking for input and enabling objections".

[samuelweiler]

I think team-appoint works well up until the point we have controversy, either multiple volunteers, or a controversial appointment. ... having the team arbitrate between volunteers less than ideal. Perhaps we need (a) to use the AB ... to settle chairing conflicts when there are multiple volunteers?

I have a different view. As a team person selecting chairs, I see having multiple volunteers as a good thing. I think I'll make a better decision when faced with a pool of candidates and asking "which will be best for this group?" than when faced with only one person and wondering "is someone better out there?". In summary, I want the default course of chair selection to embrace the "controversy" of considering multiple candidates.

I welcome a practice of broadly soliciting feedback, so long as feedback then goes to a small group which then makes the chair decision. Perhaps have the team make the decision with the consent/ratification of the AB? I do NOT feel a need (yet) to mandate a broad feedback practice. While I think it's useful, I think the appointing body (e.g. team) could adopt that practice without needing Process changes.

As a datapoint, the IETF frequently requests broad input, both as part of its NomCom process and for other appointments (e.g. ISOC board appointments, ICANN liaison appointments). That feedback goes confidentially to the deciding body - the feedback is generally not public, and there are no whole-IETF votes. Sometimes a list of candidates, while publicly available, is not publicly archived - e.g. it is not emailed to public lists nor readily findable by search engine - in part so as to have rejection not become a black mark on those rejected.

[cwilso]

To be clear - today, it is quite possible that a WG member won't even know there is a need until the Team announces the appointment of a new chair. I wasn't even saying that the Team should not be the small group to make the decision - only that the WG should have the opportunity to provide input before they do so.

[dwsinger]

Hope "Chair appointment community involvement, transparency, enabling objections and handling them" is inclusive enough as a title

[cwilso]

It certainly includes a lot. :). (I'm fine with it.)

[jyasskin]

Thanks @plehegar for pointing out that this issue already existed. The Guide can't define appeals and objections, but I think it's a good place to start for community involvement and transparency since it's faster to iterate on than the Process's annual cadence.

[csarven]

With greater transparency from the W3C Team on the decision-making process and rationale for the choice of proposed chairs is likely to reduce potential objections, which I would assume to be one of the key goals here.

An example of a recent WG charter proposal: the vast majority of the (formal) objections had to do with the proposed chairs, which accounted for ~30% of the AC reviews! Not a typo. This was entirely a W3C Team decision (no documentation available to the public) despite the facts available to all. This may be an exception and surely there are varying degrees of this, but it is the sort of thing that may both undermine the community confidence and stall progress.

Efforts could be made by the W3C Team to mitigate this by publishing:

1. the criteria which the W3C Team can use to be objective as possible in decision making, e.g., along the lines of Self-Review Questionnaire for Chair Candidates.
2. providing rationale on how each proposed chair meets the criteria (better than the other chair candidates).

There may of course be other factors, so the above is not intended to exclude other applicable variables.

[michaelchampion]

I'm not sure if this is a helpful response to a 5 year old issue ... but:

• I agree the decision criteria the Team (and FO Councils) use should be as explicit and transparent as feasible.
• The old Process that assumed a Director to backstop groups that can't reach consensus is gone, the Process Document AFAIK made a lot of s/Director/Team/ edits which generally makes sense, but there are some (like chair selection) that require nuanced judgment that is not easily captured in explicit criteria or can be exposed transparently.
• For chair selection, that judgment should be made by the community creating a WG or the existing WG needing new chairs. The team should probably be involved to certify that was a reasonable decision (e.g., a real person without a history of creating dissension and without obvious conflicts of interest ...). But the Team SHOULD NOT serve as a referee / tiebreaker if the community can't agree on chairs.
• If a Charter gets to the AC without such consensus, and there are significant FOs against the chosen chairs by engaged members of the community, the Team / FO Council should return the charter to the community drafting it until they find consensus.

[chaals]

It seems there is clearly a mechanism to treat naming a new chair as a W3C decision, and appeal it. I don't see anything suggested that seems a better process to do so. Thus I think we could formally close this issue.

It has brought up some issues of practice, and I have a few thoughts:

I think there is a fair bit of scope not to be overly transparent in selection of chairs. It's inevitably a weighing of people's skills and talents, and hanging all that out in public seems likely to reduce the number of people prepared to take on the task.

Failure to consult the community, such that there is a big discussion on the choice of a chair, is a clear sign of getting it Seriously Wrong and the Team should indeed have a Good Hard Look at every such incident.

But over the years the Team has made hundreds of these choices without the behind-the-scenes controversy that they regularly involve actually spilling out to affect the groups and their work. IMHO, that's a good thing.

An open process to call for volunteers seems like a good idea. I suggest that responses be considered Team-confidential. In practice, this gives the Team flexibility to sound out the community and make sure they are getting it right. If it still goes wrong they know whom they asked, and can readjust their ideas of who the community is to match reality better.

Publishing the general expectations of a chair (e.g. in /Guide) makes plenty of sense, and seems necessary if we have an open call.

A formal process publishing the names of individuals considered and rationales for rejecting them, on the other hand, seems like a bad idea.

[frivoal]

The Process now says, in https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/#charter-minor-changes:

Substantive changes to a charter (including extensions) that do not affect the way the group functions in any significant way may be approved by a Team Decision, in which case they do not require charter refinement nor Advisory Committee Review. The following are examples of such changes: the addition of an in-scope deliverable, a change of Team Contact, or a change of Chair.

and in https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/#decision-types

Decisions made by members of the Team in connection with this Process, based on their own individual or collective judgement, are called Team Decisions.

and in https://www.w3.org/policies/process/drafts/#registering-objections

Any individual (regardless of whether they are associated with a Member) may appeal any decision made in connection with this Process (except those having a different appeal process) by registering a Formal Objection with the Team.

I think this resolves the issue as stated.

[plehegar]

Unless there is new information by December 20, this issue will get closed.