5 ms·
For clarification on the 23-1 vote: "Since the W3C is based on a system of consensus, even a single “no” vote was enough to veto the proposal."
by davidkuhta 6y ago
For clarification on the 23-1 vote:
"Since the W3C is based on a system of consensus, even a single “no” vote was enough to veto the proposal."
- xiphias2 6y agoThat's what veto means generally.
- davidkuhta 6y agoAnd generally begets clarification.
- vlovich123 6y agoIt was unclear to me if that meant that Google somehow had special powers. Seems like it’s just how that org functions.
- bcrosby95 6y agoI'm not sure. To me it implies a special power other members don't have.
- int_19h 6y agoIt doesn't. For example, the Sejm (Diet) of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had universal veto power for all members: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto
- TheKarateKid 6y agoIt seems that this is more of an issue of how the W3C chooses to operate, rather than Google taking a certain position.
- every 6y agoThere are no vetoes in a consensus system. One or more members may have a "concern". Until those concerns are successfully addressed there can be no consensus. And only with consensus can anything be advanced to policy or law. The Society of Friends makes use of this form of governance: https://www.afsc.org/testimonies/decision-making https://www.afsc.org/testimonies/decision-making
- rasz 6y agoThose are just feel good sounding semantics, reminds me of NATO, or UN.
- every 6y agoIf you are a close-knit religious community that has been practicing this form of governance for centuries, then no, it's not just semantics...
- jdeibele 6y agoThe Friends are more popularly known as Quakers. My wife is one. We were married almost 20 years ago in a Quaker ceremony. There's a lot to like about their approach to things but consensus is difficult to deal with. Unreasonable people cause great stress on people who are trying to get simple things done. There are different flavors of Quakers: my wife attends an "unprogrammed meeting" which means that there's not a minister. Instead, members sit in a circle (pre-COVID) and those who are moved to speak do so. But there's also programmed meetings, which have a minister. There's probably more variations. Around the time the US was founded the Quakers were seen as good people to do business with, since they strove for honesty and transparency in business. There were many prosperous Quaker merchants. These days they seem to be more anti-capitalist.
- int_19h 6y agoThat is exactly how a veto works. In other words, a consensus-based decision make system is a special case of a decision making system with a veto, in which everyone has equal right to veto.