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: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:34:36 +0000
To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BN1PR0201MB0802ECDD85D94F68E2D31229AE9C0@BN1PR0201MB0802.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Yes, 11 is also Issue-167

Steve Z

From: Jeff Jaffe [mailto:jeff@w3.org]
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 12:33 PM
To: Stephen Zilles; public-w3process@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Issue-164][Issue-165][Issue-167] Resending: Suggested Changes to clarify Appeals in the W3C Process Document

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 encouraging consensus<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 an appeal 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 have appeal<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

The Director is the lead technical architect at W3C. His responsibilities are identified throughout this document in relevant places Some key ones include: ... "tie-breaker" for appeal 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 of Member Submission requests<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo> that are rejected for reasons unrelated to Web architecture; see also the TAG<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 of Member Submission requests<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo> that are rejected for reasons related to Web architecture; see also the Advisory 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 a rejected Member Submission request<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo>), the TAG may use a list that will be Member-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 any Formal 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 the Director<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 the Team 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 for Advisory Committee appeals<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> are described separately.

NO OTHER CHANGES ARE SUGGESTED IN THIS MESSAGE

5.2.4 Call 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>]

5.2.5 Working 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>]

5.2.8 Working Group and Interest Group Closure

The Director, subject to appeal<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 any dissent<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent> to the Working Group decision to request advancement Advisory 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 any dissent<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 the Advisory 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 any dissent<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 the Advisory 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. 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> of an Charter Proposal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#CharterReview>, after a Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#cfr>, after a Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#cfr-edited>, after a Proposal to Rescind a W3C Recommendation<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#proposed-rescinded-rec>, and after a Proposed 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 a W3C 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 is dissent<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> or Publication 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>, substantive modification<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#CharterReview> or extension<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#charter-extension>,
  *   Changes to the W3C 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> or closure<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>, or Proposal to Rescind a Recommendation<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#proposed-rescinded-rec>
  *   the Director's intention to sign a Memorandum 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 within three weeks of the decision.

An Advisory Committee representative initiates an appeal by sending a request to the Team (explained in detail in the New 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 week of 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 in elections 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 a W3C 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 a Memorandum 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

  *   If rejected<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo>, the Submitter(s) may appeal 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>.
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 the TAG<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#TAG> if the reasons are related to Web architecture, or to the Advisory 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 appropriate level 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 the W3C 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 21:35:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 July 2015 21:35:17 UTC