Role of appointed AB co-chair from the W3C team

[lianqi]

Hi, as the newly appointed AB co-chair from W3C team, I have a couple of questions to better understand this role.

1. Is the team appointed co-chair part of the AB? Looking at the text in the current Process Document, I am not very sure.
2. Related to question number 1, does the team appointed co-chair has voting right wrt AB matters?

Would like to hear some clarification from the Process CG. Thanks!

[frivoal]

I think the main relevant parts of the Process are:

https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#groups

For the purposes of this Process, a W3C Group is one of W3C’s Working Groups, Interest Groups, Advisory Committee, Advisory Board, or TAG, and a participant is a member of such a group.

This means that "member of the AB" or "AB participant" is synonymous.

Then we have

https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#ABParticipation

The Advisory Board consists of nine to eleven elected participants and one Chair

This sentence is not 100% clear, but to me, I think this means that the Chair is separate from the participants, so not a member (unless they area also an elected participant). But what does that mean?

You asked if you can vote, and I think the answer would be no. However, and this is a very important distinction, the AB votes extremely rarely. When the AB takes a straw poll, that is not a formal vote. Straw polls are an attempt at seeing if there is consensus. I would say a non-member-elected chair of the AB absolutely has a right to participate in the discussions and in straw polls. However, if the discussion fails to find consensus, and the chairs decide that we need a decision anyway, and call for a vote to decide by majority, then in that context, a chair who is not a member would not get to vote. See also https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/Guide#Decisions_and_Consensus for the difference between straw polls and votes.

Another consequence is that a non-member chair means wouldn't be a member of the Council https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#council-composition.

But all of this relies on the interpretation that "nine to eleven elected participants and one Chair" means that the chair is considered separate from the participants. Another read could be that "The Advisory Board consists […] and one Chair" means that the chair is a member/participant, just of a different kind…

I think we should clarify the Process, and we should probably ask the AB about which direction to clarify to.

[chaals]

I concur with Florian. When I was involved in working on that part of the process, the chair was the CEO by self-appointment, and I think there was some ambiguity because people were reluctant to say exactly what they thought should happen.

Given that the Process doesn't actually provide for co-chair, if someone is co-opted from outside the AB to assist the chair I think the normal reading is that they are not an AB member, and have no vote in a formal count - which as Florian says is intended to be a vanishingly rare circumstance.

I think it makes sense to ask the AC, who created the AB to represent them, whether they think it's a good thing or bad thing to have an appointed co-chair (as the AB asserts), and should they agree, whether that chair should be able to vote although they are not an elected member of the AB.

My guess is the first answer is "yeah, sure", and the second answer is "meh, whatever", but assuming what the AC thinks and not asking them is IMHO poor procedure and bad manners. You could ask as part of a general request for review and approval of an overhaul of the Process.