ambiguous statement for proxy in WG/IG

[koalie]

Section " 5.2.1. Working Group and Interest Group Participation Requirements" contains:

As a courtesy to the group, if the substitute is not well-versed in the group’s discussions, the regular participant should authorize another participant to act as proxy for votes.

It isn't clear to me whether this introduces a 3rd individual, in addition to the regular participant and the substitute.

Also, it isn't obvious to me why this is a courtesy to the group. As courtesy to a group, I'd expect more something along a heads-up or notification of a situation.

[dwsinger]

I think it's suggesting that if you send a newby substitute, don't give them your proxy, but instead have an old hand proxy your vote. When was the last time we had a formal proxy in a WG? Suggest we leave this alone.

[koalie]

Ah, got it!
I'd suggest disambiguating by using "[...]authorize another participant instead,".

[frivoal]

This is not necessarily editorial, depending on how people read the original sentence, and applies to a part of the process that isn't new in the 2020 cycle. As agreed with the CG chair, marking it as deferred, to handle it in a subsequent cycle.

[plehegar]

from https://www.w3.org/2023/01/11-w3process-minutes.html
-> deferred

[fantasai]

... I think we should just remove this sentence, I don't see what purpose it's serving.

Alternatively, delete the sentence and modify the previous sentence to allow either the substitute or another participant to proxy the vote (presumably for cases where you don't have a substitute; I'm not sure why you'd pick someone else if you have a substitute...).