Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Consensus procedure #122

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Consensus procedure #122

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
64df340
Consensus procedure
littledan Nov 1, 2022
77d8fe7
Update how-to-participate-in-meetings.md
littledan Nov 2, 2022
36c4b27
Add explicit call for concerns which might not be blocking
littledan Nov 15, 2022
b034e99
Update how-to-participate-in-meetings.md
littledan Nov 17, 2022
5263b17
Apply changes based on committee feedback
littledan Feb 6, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
22 changes: 22 additions & 0 deletions how-to-participate-in-meetings.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -26,6 +26,28 @@ issues you see with it, and articulate them. What are the limitations? Are there
champions can do to help their case? What sort of improvements are needed? Have requirements been
missed? Try to move the discussion in a positive direction!

### Procedure for establishing consensus

Committee consensus is required to advance a proposal to a subsequent stage and to merge normative PRs. To achieve consensus in committee, take the following steps:
1. Place the item, with a link to the detailed materials, on the TC39 agenda ahead of the agenda deadline. This is to ensure everyone has a chance to review it ahead of the meeting, and insert schedule constraints for when they want to participate in the discussion. Note that some schedule constraints may force the topic into a future meeting.
1. Discuss it at the meeting in a presentation, hearing out all concerns from the committee. If there is too much to discuss to fit within the timebox, then rather than jumping to asking for consensus, prefer to continue discussion in an overflow item or future meeting.
1. When discussion has concluded, a call for consensus can be made, as follows:
1. The presenter asks the committee for consensus on $xyz.
1. (Note, the chair may encourage the presenter to make this request if it appears that the committee conversation has settled, or the presenter may decide to ask this directly.)
1. One TC39 attendee states, “I nominate $xyz for consensus.”
1. Another states, “I second $xyz for consensus.”
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

requiring at least one explicit "yes" seems reasonable, but two, and the formalism, seems a bit overblown to me

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

About formality: people in committee seem to have fun with formal language sometimes, so this proposal goes a little camp/extra with it all. I would be fine to tone that down.

The main element of this proposal is to say, two people in committee besides the champion should say, "I want this proposal to go forward" before we call for objections. I think that is quite a low bar, and would give more people a chance to constructively participate as well as say the reason they support it. This is just an idea to improve engagement in committee.

What if we said, one is technically enough if it came down to it, but two is encouraged?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That seems fine; i certainly agree that ideally, there’s a multitude of explicit supporters.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK, I've edited the text to require just a minimum of one, and reduce the formality. Thanks for the approval! We'll discuss this in TC39 before it lands.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Happy to discuss this in in TC39, but I think the original text requiring two people to explicitly support a proposal is a good idea and presents a very low bar, when we often have 50 or 60 people present in committee. I'm happy to see we're trying to increase engagement and move away from proposals getting consensus through lack of objections rather than explicit support.

1. The chair will then ask the committee, “Does anyone object to $xyz for consensus?”
1. If there are no objections, the chair states, “$xyz has achieved consensus”.
1. This result is recorded in the minutes and reviewed by the proposer. This is perhaps the most important part. Note that the consensus may come with certain “strings attached”, e.g., certain edits made. This is known as “conditional consensus” and must be fully recorded in the minutes as well.

If a proposition does not reach consensus, note that the committee may revisit it at any time in the future, given that this procedure is followed appropriately. At the same time, once the committee has reached consensus on a proposition, it is considered to have established the consensus, and it would take consensus in a different direction to change course. For example, advancing a proposal to a further stage requires consensus, as does retracting it to the previous stage–a single objection is not enough to undo consensus after it is established.
littledan marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

Objections to consensus need to be accompanied by a rationale which is appropriately related to the proposition under consideration. For example, for stage advancement, an objection must relate to the qualifications/maturity/acceptance criteria of that stage. It is not meaningful to “object” to established consensus (e.g., around prior stage advancement), as it would take a new consensus decision to overturn it.

The only exception where consensus may be “undone” soon after it was made is due to inappropriate exclusion of someone from the discussion, e.g., if the item hadn’t been placed on the agenda by the deadline, leading a delegate to not attend a meeting where they would have objected to the consensus. Self-exclusion does not qualify, e.g. people choosing not to attend or not reading the agenda ahead of time.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ideally -- a blocking constraint can be raised async, before the proposal goes to committee. but maybe this section should be integrated in the process document.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We didn't get around to discussing this in plenary, so I'd prefer to leave it out for now.


The process to achieve consensus requires explicit support from two attendees besides the presenter. This requirement exists to ensure that there is active support in committee from the proposal aside from the champion, rather than simply a lack of explicit objections.

## Tools for participation

We have a few tools that help us facilitate communication. They are as follows:
Expand Down