W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > August 2014

Feedback on Process-20140801 section 8

From: <timeless@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:10:40 -0400
Message-ID: <20140813211040.25206875.41525.2019@gmail.com>
To: public-w3process@w3.org
I'm sorry that I didn't send this feedback on [1] earlier, I've been busy. 

{Section 8 Advisory Committee Reviews, Appeals, and Votes}

> This section describes how the Advisory Committee reviews proposals from the Director
> and how Advisory Committee representatives appeal W3C decisions and decisions by the Director.

That sentence is really long.

> A W3C decision is one where the Director (or the Director's delegate) has exercised the role of assessing consensus

This is an odd place to hide that <Director> in most of the document really means <Director or Director's delegate>,
It should be split out as its own sentence: Director means Director or Director's delegate unless otherwise indicated.

> after an Advisory Committee review of an Activity Proposal,
> after a Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation,
> after a Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation,

This sentence is so long that no one noticed that this part is duplicated.

I'd suggest a bulleted list. And refactor <after> to before the <:> so that you don't repeat it.

> after a Proposal to Rescind a W3C Recommendation, and

This <and> should probably be an <or>

> after a Proposed Process Document review.

> proposals for [new], [modified], and [extended Activities],

Please have distinct links for [extended] and [Activities].
Perhaps: [Activity] proposals, including [creating], [modifying], and [extending]. 

> Each Advisory Committee review period begins with a Call for Review from the Team to the Advisory Committee.
> The review form describes the proposal,

<review form> only appears here, and it isn't a link.

> raises attention to deadlines,


> estimates when the decision will be available,
> and includes other practical information.
> Each Member organization MAY send one review,

<send one review> doesn't quite match the later text.
I think it's more like One review from each Member organization WILL be considered (it can be modified).
(That's clearly awkward, but ...)

> which MUST be returned by its Advisory Committee representative.

<returned> is odd and doesn't match <send>. Pehraps <submitted>.

> A Member organization MAY modify its review during a review period (e.g., in light of comments from other Members).

Is there a protocol to indicate that something is a modified review?

Can a Member withdraw its review entirely?

> After the review period,
> the Director MUST announce to the Advisory Committee the level of support for the proposal (consensus or dissent).
> The Director MUST also indicate whether there were any Formal Objections,
> with attention to changing confidentiality level.

<attention> is odd. <care> comes to mind, but the line needs more words.

> This W3C decision is generally one of the following:

> In this case the Director's announcement MUST include rationale for the decision to

I'm used to either <[article] rationale> or <rationale>[plural-marker:s]
so, either <rationales> or <an explanation> ?

> advance the document despite the proposal for a substantive change.

> This document does not specify time intervals between the end of
> an Advisory Committee review period and the W3C decision.
> This is to ensure that the Members and Team have sufficient time to consider comments gathered during the review.
> The Advisory Committee SHOULD NOT expect an announcement sooner than two weeks after the end of a Proposed Recommendation review period.
> If, after three weeks, the Director has not announced the outcome,
> the Director SHOULD provide the Advisory Committee with an update.

Wouldn't it be better to write:

The Director SHOULD provide an update or announcement of an outcome three weeks after the review period ends.

> Publication of a Recommendation or Publication of a Rescinded Recommendation,
> Activity creation, modification, or extension,
> Working or Interest Group creation or extension,

s/,/, and/

> Changes to the W3C process.

> Activity closure,
> Working or Interest Group extension or closure,
> Call for Implementations, Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation, Call for Review of an Edited Recommendation, or Proposal to Rescind a Recommendation

s/$/, and/

> the Director's intention to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with another organization.

> In all cases, an appeal MUST be initiated within three weeks of the decision.

s/the/the announcement of the/ ?

> If, within one week of the Team's announcement,
> 5% or more of the Advisory Committee support the appeal request

This 5% is against all AC reps? (there are currently <400, so 5% would be 20)
So adding 20 new inactive (but paying) members moderately escalates the requirement by 1 additional AC rep?
Actually, I have no idea how to figure out how many ACs represent "un-related Members". Team: is there a way for me to see this w/ dbwg?

> the Team MUST organize an appeal vote asking the Advisory Committee to approve or reject the decision.

<appeal vote> should link to <8.3 Advisory Committee Votes>

[1] http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801‎
Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2014 21:11:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:11 UTC