W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > July 2015

Re: [Issue-164][Issue-165][Issue-167] Resending: Suggested Changes to clarify Appeals in the W3C Process Document

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:33:16 -0400
Message-ID: <55A4127C.5000207@w3.org>
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Steve,

Isn't 11 also Issue-167?

Jeff

On 7/13/2015 3:26 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
> Resending the earlier proposal on “appeals” to identify, for each 
> REPLACEMENT or ADDITION, the issue(s) which the proposal addresses and 
> to indicate what is “new” material. The tags for the issue related 
> changes are:
>
> [Clean-up, Issue-164 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>]
>
> [Remove lists of appealable decisions, Issue-165 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/165>]
>
> [Rejection with Positive Reviews, Issue-167 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/167>]
>
> Steve Zilles
>
> To implement a cleanup of the wording of “appeals” in the 2015 Process 
> Document, a suggested replacement wording follows the flags, 
> “REPLACEMENT:” or “ADDITION:”  In coming up with the suggested 
> changes, several principles were applied:
>
> A.Which of the three types of appeal is to be used MUST be explicitly 
> identified. The three types are:
>
> i.Group Decision Appeal
>
> ii.Submission Appeal
>
> iii.Advisory Committee Appeal
>
> B.Who can initiate the appeal MUST be identified (whether it is an 
> individual or an AC Representative)
>
> C.What is being appealed, what “decision” and who (chair, Director, 
> W3C or Team) made it MUST be identified.
>
> D.Note: Formal Objections are not strictly an “appeal”. They are 
> “registered” not “initiated” and they follow the document to which 
> they apply. A separate step, the Group Decision Appeal that asks the 
> Director to “confirm or deny a decision” (of the group) is the appeal 
> mechanism. Any individual may register a Formal Objection, but only 
> group participants may issue a Group Decision Appeal and if they 
> belong to a Member organization then they must do so through their AC 
> Representative.
>
> E.There should be a specification of what DOCUMENTATION should 
> accompany each type of appeal. This is specified for a Group Decision 
> Appeal.
>
> F.It was not clear to this author whether the word “appeal” should be 
> capitalized when it is used as a category name. I think it should, but 
> usage elsewhere in the Process Document suggests that it might not be 
> capitalized.
>
> TL;DR: The suggested changes below, I believe, address Issue-164 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>, Issue-165 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/165> and 
> Issue-167 <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/167>. 
> You have to read them to assess them.
>
> Steve Zilles
>
> 1 Introduction
>
> The Process Document promotes the goals of quality and fairness in 
> technical decisions by encouragingconsensus 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#Consensus>, requiring 
> reviews (by both Members and public) as part of the technical report 
> development process 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#Reports>, and through 
> anappeal process 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>for the Advisory 
> Committee.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “… through an Advisory Committee Appeal process 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>.”*
>
> [Clean-up, Issue-164 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>]
>
>
>       2.1 Members
>
> Advisory Committee representatives haveappeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>powers for some 
> processes described in this document.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “Advisory Committee representatives MAY initiate an 
> Advisory Committee Appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> for some of the 
> processes describe in this document.”*
>
>
>       2.2 The W3C Team
>
> TheDirectoris the lead technical architect at W3C. His 
> responsibilities are identified throughout this document in relevant 
> places Some key ones include: … "tie-breaker" forappeal of a Working 
> Group decision <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#WGAppeals>, …
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “… for a Group Decision Appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#WGAppeals>.”*
>
> [Clean-up, Issue-164 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>]
>
>
>       2.3 Advisory Board (AB)
>
> The Advisory Board hears appeals ofMember Submission requests 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo>that are 
> rejected for reasons unrelated to Web architecture; see also theTAG 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#TAG>.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “The Advisory Board hears a Submission Appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo> when a 
> Member Submission is rejected …”*
>
> [Clean-up, Issue-164 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>]
>
>
>       2.4 Technical Architecture Group (TAG)
>
> The TAG hears appeals ofMember Submission requests 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo>that are 
> rejected for reasons related to Web architecture; see also theAdvisory 
> Board <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AB>.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “The TAG hears a Submission Appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo> when a 
> Member Submission is rejected …”*
>
> [Clean-up, Issue-164 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>]
>
> For some TAG discussions (e.g., an appeal of arejected Member 
> Submission request 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo>), the TAG 
> /may/use a list that will beMember-only 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#Member-only>.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “For some TAG discussions (e.g., a Submission Appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo>), …”*
>
> [Clean-up, Issue-164 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>]
>
>
>       3.5 Appeal of a Chair's Decision
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “3.5 Appeal of Group Decisions”*
>
> Groups resolve issues through dialog. Individuals who disagree 
> strongly with a decision/should/register with the Chair anyFormal 
> Objections 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#FormalObjection>(e.g., to 
> a decision made as the result of a vote 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#Votes>).
>
> When group participants believe that their concerns are not being duly 
> considered by the group, they/may/ask theDirector 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Director>(for 
> representatives of a Member organization, via their Advisory Committee 
> representative) to confirm or deny the decision. The 
> participants/should/also make their requests known to theTeam Contact 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#TeamContact>. The Team 
> Contact/must/inform the Director when a group participant has raised 
> concerns about due process.
>
> *ADDITION: (following, “confirm or deny the decision.”) This is called 
> a Group Decision Appeal.*
>
> [Clean-up, Issue-164 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>]
>
> Any requests to the Director to confirm a decision/must/include a 
> summary of the issue (whether technical or procedural), decision, and 
> rationale for the objection. All counter-arguments, rationales, and 
> decisions/must/be recorded.
>
> Procedures forAdvisory Committee appeals 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>are described 
> separately.
>
> *NO OTHER CHANGES ARE SUGGESTED IN THIS MESSAGE*
>
>
>         5.2.4Call for Participation in a Working Group or Interest Group
>
> Advisory Committee representatives/may/appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>creation or 
> substantive modification of a Working Group or Interest Group charter.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “Advisory Committee representatives /MAY/ initiate an 
> Advisory Committee appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> to the W3C 
> Decision to create or substantively modify *a Working Group or 
> Interest Group charter.”
>
> [Clean-up, Issue-164 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>]
>
>
>         5.2.5Working Group and Interest Group Charter Extension
>
> Advisory Committee representatives/may/appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>the extension of 
> a Working Group or Interest Group charter.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “Advisory Committee representatives MAY initiate an 
> Advisory Committee appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> to the 
> Director’s Decision to extend the charter of a Working Group or 
> Interest Group.”*
>
> [Clean-up, Issue-164 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>]
>
>
>         5.2.8Working Group and Interest Group Closure
>
> The Director, subject toappeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>by Advisory 
> Committee representatives,/may/close a group prior to the date 
> specified in the charter in any of the following circumstances:
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “The Director, subject to an Advisory Committee appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> initiated by 
> Advisory Committee representatives, /MAY/ decide to close …”*
>
> [Clean-up, Issue-164 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>]
>
>
>       6.4 Candidate Recommendation
>
> If there was anydissent 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent>to the 
> Working Group decision to request advancementAdvisory Committee 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AC>representatives/may/appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>the decision to 
> advance the technical report.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “If there was any dissent 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent> to the 
> Working Group decision to request advancement, Advisory Committee 
> representatives MAY initiate an Advisory Committee appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> to the W3C 
> Decision to advance the technical report.”*
>
> [Clean-up, Issue-164 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>]
>
>
>       6.6 W3C Recommendation
>
>   * If there was anydissent
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent>in
>     Advisory Committee reviews, the Director/must/publish the
>     substantive content of the dissent to W3C and the general public,
>     and/must/formally address
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#formal-address> the
>     comment at least 14 days before publication as a W3C
>     Recommendation. In this case theAdvisory Committee
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AC>/may/appeal
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>the decision,
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “•     If there was any dissent 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent> in the 
> Advisory Committee review 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACReview>, the Director 
> /MUST/ publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C and the 
> general public, and /MUST/ formally address 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#formal-address> the 
> comment at least 14 days before publication as a W3C Recommendation. 
> In this case or if the Director rejects the proposal despite positive 
> reviews, Advisory Committee representatives may initiate an Advisory 
> Committee Appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> to the W3C 
> Decision.”*
>
> [Clean-up, Issue-164 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>] [Rejection 
> with Positive Reviews, Issue-167 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/167>]
>
>
>       6.9 Rescinding a W3C Recommendation
>
> If there was anydissent 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent>in Advisory 
> Committee reviews, the Director/must/publish the substantive content 
> of the dissent to W3C*and the public*, and/must/formally address 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#formal-address>the 
> comment at least 14 days before publication as a Rescinded 
> Recommendation. In this case theAdvisory Committee 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AC>/may/appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>the decision.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “•     If there was any dissent 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent> in the 
> Advisory Committee review 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACReview>, the Director 
> /MUST/ publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C and the 
> general public, and /MUST/ formally address 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#formal-address> the 
> comment at least 14 days before publication as a Rescinded 
> Recommendation. In this case or if the Director rejects the proposal 
> despite positive reviews, Advisory Committee representatives may 
> initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> to the W3C 
> Decision.”*
>
> [Clean-up, Issue-164 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>] [Rejection 
> with Positive Reviews, Issue-167 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/167>]
>
>
>     7 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. AW3C decisionis one where 
> the Director (or the Director's delegate) has exercised the role of 
> assessing consensus after anAdvisory Committee review 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACReview>of anCharter 
> Proposal <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#CharterReview>, 
> after aCall for Review of a Proposed Recommendation 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#cfr>, after aCall for 
> Review of a Proposed Recommendation 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#cfr-edited>, after 
> aProposal to Rescind a W3C Recommendation 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#proposed-rescinded-rec>, 
> and after aProposed Process Document 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#GAProcess>review.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “This section describes how the Advisory Committee 
> reviews proposals from the Director and how Advisory Committee 
> representatives initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal of a W3C 
> decision or a Director’s decision. A /W3C decision/ is one where the 
> Director (or the Director's delegate) has exercised the role of 
> assessing consensus after an Advisory Committee review 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACReview>.”*
>
> **
>
> *[the remaining portion of the above paragraph, the list of 
> “proposals” is eliminated as redundant. For this to work, however, it 
> will be necessary for all the sections that involve making a W3C 
> Decision to be updated to state that explicitly. Section 6.6 W3C 
> Recommendation already says, “*The decision to advance a document to 
> Recommendation is aW3C Decision 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-w3c-decision>.”*]*
>
> [Remove lists of appealable decisions, Issue-165 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/165>]
>
>
>       7.2 Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives
>
> When Advisory Committee review immediately precedes a decision, 
> Advisory Committee representatives/may/only appeal when there 
> isdissent <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent>.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “When a W3C decision is made following an Advisory 
> Committee review 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACReview> of a proposal, 
> Advisory Committee representatives /MAY/ only initiate an Advisory 
> Committee appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> when either 
> there is dissent 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent> or the 
> Director rejects the proposal despite positive reviews.*
>
> [Rejection with Positive Reviews, Issue-167 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/167>]
>
> These decisions are:
>
>   * Publication of a Recommendation
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#rec-publication>orPublication
>     of a Rescinded Recommendation
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#proposed-rescinded-rec>,
>   * Working or Interest Group creation
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#cfp>,
>     substantivemodification
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#CharterReview>orextension
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#charter-extension>,
>   * Changes to theW3C process
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#GAProcess>.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “These W3C decisions are identified in the sections that 
> explain the requirements for the decisions and include decisions 
> related to group creation and modification, certain maturity levels 
> for Recommendation Track documents and the Process document.*
>
> [Remove lists of appealable decisions, Issue-165 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/165>]
>
> Advisory Committee representatives/may/always appeal the following 
> decisions:
>
>   * Working or Interest Group extension
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#charter-extension>orclosure
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#GeneralTermination>,
>   * Call for Implementations
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#candidate-rec>,Call
>     for Review of a Proposed Recommendation
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#cfr>,Call for Review
>     of an Edited Recommendation
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#cfr-edited>,
>     orProposal to Rescind a Recommendation
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#proposed-rescinded-rec>
>   * the Director's intention to sign aMemorandum of Understanding
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#mou>with another
>     organization.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “Advisory Committee representatives /MAY/ also initiate 
> an appeal for certain Director’s decisions that do not involve an 
> Advisory Committee review. These, too, are identified in the sections 
> which describe the requirements for the Director’s decision and 
> include additional (non-reviewed) maturity levels of Recommendation 
> Track documents, group charter extensions and closures, and 
> Memorandums of Understanding.”*
>
> [Remove lists of appealable decisions, Issue-165 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/165>]
>
> [Note: the above two replacements are suggested as the resolution to 
> Issue-165 <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/165>, 
> but still leave the problem of solving Issue-166 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/166>]
>
> In all cases, an appeal/must/be initiated withinthree weeksof the 
> decision.
>
> An Advisory Committee representative initiates an appeal by sending a 
> request to the Team (explained in detail in theNew Member Orientation 
> <http://www.w3.org/Member/Intro>). The Team/must/announce the appeal 
> process to the Advisory Committee and provide an address for comments 
> from Advisory Committee representatives. The archive of these 
> comments/must/be Member-visible. If, within one weekof the Team's 
> announcement, 5% or more of the Advisory Committee support the appeal 
> request, the Team/must/organize an appeal vote asking the Advisory 
> Committee to approve or reject the decision.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “… the Team MUST organize an appeal vote with a four 
> week balloting period asking the Advisory Committee to approve or 
> reject the decision. A majority of the votes received decides the 
> appeal.”*
>
> [New material to define length of balloting period and what the vote 
> means; note no quorum for the vote is required because a quorum is 
> required to cause the vote to take place.]
>
> *[NOTE: there is no explanation of “sending an appeal request to the 
> Team” at the site the “New Member Orientation” link goes to. I would 
> suggest that a paragraph similar to that in section 3.5 should replace 
> the first sentence in the paragraph above. For example,]*
>
> *“An Advisory Committee representative initiates an an Advisory Board 
> Appeal by sending a request to ??? That request MUST include a summary 
> of the issue (whether technical or procedural), decision, and 
> rationale for the objection. All counter-arguments, rationales, and 
> decisions SHOULD be recorded. [the “???” is because I do not know what 
> address such requests should be sent to.]*
>
> [New material to fix a link to a non-existant policy.]
>
>
>       7.3 Advisory Committee Votes
>
> The Advisory Committee votes inelections for seats on the TAG or 
> Advisory Board 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AB-TAG-elections>, and in 
> the event of a formal appeal of aW3C decision 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-w3c-decision>.
>
> //
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “…and in the event of an Advisory Committee Appeal 
> achieving the required support to trigger an appeal vote.”*
>
> [Clean-up, Issue-164 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>]
>
>
>     9 Liaisons
>
> The W3C Director/may/negotiate and sign aMemorandum of Understanding 
> (MoU)with another organization. Before signing the MoU, the 
> Team/must/inform the Advisory Committee of the intent to sign and make 
> the MoU available for Advisory Committee review; the Advisory 
> Committee/may/appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “… and make the MoU available to the Advisory 
> Committee;**Advisory Committee representatives MAY initiate an 
> Advisory Committee appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> to the decision 
> to sign the MoU.*
>
> [Clean-up, Issue-164 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>]
>
> [Note the use of “Advisory Committee review” in the original paragraph 
> seems to be an misstatement; it should only have meant that the AC 
> Representatives can see the document rather than a formal AC Review 
> was conducted. That is supported by what is in section 7.2 which says 
> the decision to sign is always appealable.]
>
>
>     10 Member Submission Process
>
>   * Ifrejected
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo>, the
>     Submitter(s)/may/appeal to either theTAG
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#TAG>or theAdvisory
>     Board <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AB>.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “•     If rejected 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo>, the 
> Submitter(s) MAY initiate a Submission Appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo> of the 
> Team’s decision to either the TAG 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#TAG> or the Advisory 
> Board <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AB>.”*
>
> [Clean-up, Issue-164 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>]
>
>
>       10.4 Rejection of a Submission Request
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “10.4 Rejection of a Submission Request and Submission 
> Appeals*
>
> [Clean-up, Issue-164 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>]
>
> The Advisory Committee representative(s) of the 
> Submitters(s)/may/appeal the rejection to theTAG 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#TAG>if the reasons are 
> related to Web architecture, or to theAdvisory Board 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AB>if the request is 
> rejected for other reasons. In this case the Team/should/make 
> available its rationale for the rejection to the appropriate body. The 
> Team will establish a process for such appeals that ensures the 
> appropriatelevel of confidentiality 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#confidentiality-levels>.
>
>
>     11 Process Evolution
>
> 1.After the Advisory Committee review 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACReviewAfter>, if there 
> is consensus, the Team enacts the new process officially by announcing 
> theW3C decision 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-w3c-decision>to the 
> Advisory Committee. If there was dissent 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent>, Advisory 
> Committee representatives/may/appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>the decision.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “… to the Advisory Committee. Advisory Committee 
> representatives /MAY/ initiate an Advisory Committee appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> to the W3C 
> decision when either there is dissent 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent> or the 
> Director rejects the proposal despite positive reviews.”*
>
> [Clean-up, Issue-164 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>]
>
Received on Monday, 13 July 2015 19:33:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 July 2015 19:33:28 UTC