This is “Part 2”

Follow up from the presendation given at the 2019 Quebec AC meeting

Today : brief reminder + updates

For all other details, see previous presentation, or ask me later

Previous slides at https://florian.rivoal.net/talks/AC-2019/director/

Context

• Sir Tim spending less time with W3C, will step down at some point
• The Director (formally) makes all decisions, all announcements, appointments (e.g. TAG and IEs), hears Formal Objections, is Chief Architect, etc.
• Reality and the Process document today are not exactly aligned:
  • Many things in the Process are mechanical: no decision, but claimed to be done under the authority of the director
  • Other things in the Process do involve some decision / judgement call, but have been delegated to the Team
• W3C working on becoming a Legal Entity

Exploring

The AB is exploring what a “Director-free” W3C would look like

Some were skeptical, but agreed that it was worth looking into

We have a draft for discussion (Diff), not yet proposed for adoption

Not planned to be included in Process 2020, but should be ready before we actually need it.

New developments since last time

• Formal Objections and Appeals
• TAG appointed seats
• Patent Policy & PAGs

W3C Council

How to rule on controversial topics?
Formal Objections, Group Decision Appeal, Member Submission Appeal

• Step 1: investigation and mediation by the Team (like today)
• Step 2: TAG + AB + CEO = W3C Council
  • Decides by consensus
  • Decides as a whole, can form sub-groups for detailed investigation
  • Members too directly involved should recuse
  • Chair can call for vote if consensus cannot be found
  • Team and Council to be further guided by guidelines (on thoroughness, fairness, transparency…)

W3C Council — Further Thoughts

• Legitimate, with broad expertise to cover everything W3C
• Not entirely free of conflicts of interest (e.g. Formal objections against a proposed Process Update).
  → Less often in COI than the Team
• Big Group, could be unwieldy.
  → Can form smaller task forces
• Consensus? Simple majority? Super majority?
• Rules on recusal?

TAG

• 3 Seats on the TAG are appointed by the Director
• The TAG needs diversity (individual characteristics, professional background, area of expertise)
• Elections are not good at ensuring diversity
• → Continue to appoint the seats
• → TAG Appointment Committee
  • Takes suggestions + does own investigations
  • Formed in sync with elections, appoints after election results are known
  • Composed of 1? Team, 4? Chairs, 2? TAG. Randomly selected from qualified & willing

TAG Appointment Committee—Questions

Is this the right approach?

Is this the composition?

• Type of seats
• Number of type of seats

Some have expressed reluctance about random selection for forming the committee. What else?

PAGs

The Patent Policy has one thorny role for the Director:

During PAG, ability to propose going to Recommendation despite patents

→ The PAG can propose, decided by AC review

Note: never happened in the history of W3C