Blocks like this are quotes from the Process, included to help understand what various sections need to cover. Delete them before publishing the report.
Italicized sentences like this give instructions or comments to the writer of the report. Delete them before publishing the report.
[text between square brackets is meant become part of the report, but needs adjustments or completion before publishing, or deletion in cases where it is not applicable.]
The source of this document is available in Bikeshed format at https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/tree/main/council-templates.
1. Introduction
A detailed exposition of this case may be found in the report prepared by the W3C Team.
Summarise the situation, clearly identify the decision that is being formally objected to, list the objections raised, indicate if any were resolved by consensus (and therefore don’t need to be ruled on by the council), to make clear exactly what the Council considers it is being asked to rule on. If practical, and summarize the (not yet resolved) objections to make this report easier to read standalone. However, if the objections are long, raise numerous points, or are hard to summarize, linking may be more prudent than rephrasing.
[…]
A Council was then formed to rule on [this | these] [remaining] objection[s]. This Council Report documents the conclusions of this Council.
2. Decision
The Council resolved to [accept the Team’s recommendation to] [overrule | sustain] the [remaining] objection[s].
Pick the right option,
or write a similar short sentence making it clear what the consequence of the decision is:
[The decision stands.]
[The decision is overturned.]
[The charter may proceed.]
[The charter, as proposed, is rejected.]
[The specification may proceed to Recommendation.]
[The specification, as proposed, cannot proceed to Recommendation.]
[…]
If any post-AC review changes got consensus and were integrated into the proposed charter/spec/etc, especially if that was necessary to resolve some of the formal objections, and if the remaining formal objections were overruled, for the avoidance of doubt, it’s usually good to clarify that the document that is cleared for advancement is the one with those changes integrated. A link to the section of the Process that explains how such changes are integrated is welcome too.
3. Rationale
must provide a rationale supporting the decision, which should address each argument raised in the Formal Objection(s).
The W3C Council may overrule the Formal Objection even if it agrees with some of the supportive arguments.
[…]
Delete the following paragraph if not applicable:
Some additional Member-only remarks
were made in connection with the objection[s].
These were taken into account in the Council’s conclusion.
To respect confidentiality,
they cannot be discussed in this report,
but are covered in a Supplemental Member-only Council Report.
4. Recommendations
must include any recommendation decided by the Council.
When upholding an objection, it should recommend a way forward.
If the Council has some suggestions to give, write them here. This could be, in the case of objections overruled despite some concerns, advice on what to do in order to avoid further potentially sustainable objections at a later stage; alternatively, in the case of sustained objections, suggestions of what the originating group can do to try and overcome the disagreements. None of this, however, is binding.
[…]
5. Mitigations
If an overturned decision has already had consequences (e.g., if the objection concerns material already in a published document) the Council should suggest how these consequences might be mitigated. The Team is responsible for making sure that adequate mitigations are enacted in a timely fashion; and the Formal Objection is not considered fully addressed until then.Note: This does not create new powers for the Team, such as the ability to “unpublish” documents. The Team’s role is to ensure the responsible parties enact adequate mitigations, by whatever means they already have at their disposal.
[…]
If the objections were overruled, delete this section.
Appendix A: Council Participation
Information on participation, as required by Process on Councils.
The following individuals were potential Council members, due to either being participants in the TAG or the AB, or to being [the Team delegate chosen by] the W3C CEO:
- […]
- […]
- […]
[X, Y, and Z | None of the potential Council members] renounced their seats on the Council; [X, Y, and Z | none of the potential Council members] [was | were] dismissed. Therefore, the actual membership of this council was:
Delete the following list (and the “Therefore…” sentence right before it) if it is identical to the previous one.
- […]
- […]
- […]
[Name] was appointed as chair.
Of those qualified to serve, the following participated in the final decision:
- […]
- […]
- […]
Pick among the following two paragraphs, as appropriate, and delete the other one.
The decision was made by consensus.
The decision was made by vote, with [x] in favor, [y] against, and [z] abstaining[, with the chair breaking the tie].
Appendix B: Minority Report
In the case of non-unanimous decisions, members of a W3C Council who disagree with the decision may write a Minority Opinion explaining the reason for their disagreement.
[…]
If the decision was taken by consensus, or those who lost the vote do no wish to explain their views, delete this section.