Decision Making
PTI governance decisions SHOULD be made by rough consensus — wide agreement among participants, with unresolved objections examined on their technical merit rather than participant count alone. When consensus cannot be reached, documented voting rules apply.
Process rules use RFC 2119 keywords.
Decision categories
| Category | Examples | Default mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| Routine | Errata, editorial fixes, meeting scheduling | Maintainer discretion |
| Technical | RFC promotion to Candidate/Accepted | Rough consensus |
| Architectural | Cross-cutting design, breaking changes | Rough consensus + ARB sign-off |
| Security | Crypto suites, disclosure timelines | SRG recommendation + WG ratification |
| Governance | Changes to this document set | Supermajority vote |
| Conformance | Profile requirement changes | Conformance Board + WG ratification |
Rough consensus procedure
Adapted from open-standards practice without copying any single organization's rules:
- Call for comments — Proposal published with minimum review period
- Summarize positions — Maintainer documents support, neutral, and objecting parties
- Resolve objections — Authors SHOULD address each substantive objection in writing
- Assess remaining dissent — If objections are narrow, specific, and technically grounded, MAY block; vague or procedural objections SHOULD NOT alone block
- Declare outcome — Maintainer states consensus reached, deferred, or failed
What counts as substantive
| Substantive (may block) | Non-substantive (should not alone block) |
|---|---|
| Demonstrated interoperability failure | Preference for different naming |
| Security flaw identified by SRG | Unimplemented "nice to have" |
| Privacy regression vs RFC-009 | Schedule pressure |
| Breaking change without policy compliance | Dislike of author's employer |
Formal voting
Votes MUST be used when:
- Governance document amendments require supermajority
- Rough consensus fails after two revision cycles
- Stewardship Council appeals (Phase 1–2 only)
Eligibility
During Phase 1–2, voting participants SHOULD include:
- Maintainers
- Contributors with merged RFC or test contributions in the last 12 months
- One delegate per accredited independent implementer organization (optional seat)
From Phase 3, eligibility rules SHOULD expand per Ecosystem Roadmap.
Thresholds
| Decision | Threshold | Quorum |
|---|---|---|
| RFC Accept / Stable | ≥75% approve, ≤2 blocking objections unaddressed | 50% of eligible voters |
| Governance rule change | ≥66% approve | 50% of eligible voters |
| Emergency security patch | SRG chair + 2 Maintainers | N/A |
| Deprecation of Stable RFC | ≥75% approve + 90-day notice | 50% |
Votes SHOULD run open ballot for transparency. Secret ballots MAY be used for personnel matters only.
Board recommendations
| Board | Blocking? |
|---|---|
| ARB | SHOULD block Stable promotion for architectural RFCs without written clearance or documented override |
| SRG | MUST block Accepted/Stable for security RFCs without review |
| Conformance Board | MUST block profile changes that invalidate certificates without grandfather plan |
Override of a board block MUST be recorded with public rationale and SHOULD require supermajority WG vote.
Appeals
- Appellant MUST file written appeal within 14 days of decision
- Different Maintainer SHOULD triage; conflicted Maintainers MUST recuse
- Appeal MAY reopen discussion or escalate to Stewardship Council (Phase 1–2)
- Final specification interpretation for Stable RFCs MAY be referred to ARB for binding errata interpretation
Decision records
Substantive decisions MUST publish:
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| ID | Decision-YYYY-NNN |
| Date | ISO 8601 |
| Subject | RFC ID or policy section |
| Outcome | Approved / rejected / deferred |
| Vote tallies | If applicable |
| Dissent summary | Preserved for future reference |
| Links | PRs, issues, minutes |
Conflicts of interest
Participants MUST recuse from votes where:
- Personal financial interest exceeds disclosed threshold
- Employer stands to gain exclusive advantage from non-neutral outcome
- Participant authored >50% of contested text without co-author
Recusal MUST NOT reduce independent reviewer minimums.