- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:36:56 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
> On Mar 19, 2015, at 12:38 , L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > > It's not clear to me if the current process allows an appeal if: > > 1. a charter is sent to the AC for review > 2. some members support the charter, and some members object > 3. changes are made to resolve the objections of all the objecting > members, leading to the withdrawal of those objections > 4. the charter is approved > 5. some of the members who supported the charter in (2) object to > the revisions from step (3) > > This doesn't seem all that far-fetched. > > I think the current wording is unclear because it's not clear if, > after (3), it meets the criteria for there having been dissent, or > if there's required to be a chance for objections to the revisions > made in (3). (I think typically such a chance is offered to AC reps > who voted in support, although not those who didn't previously > vote). > > -David I agree, this has troubled me for a while: if I formally object to a charter, I (and only I) get to negotiate what changes are needed to resolve my objection. What about the folks who kinda liked it the way it was? I think it should be possible for any AC Rep to ask for a second-round charter review in those circumstances. Or maybe the team should do it automatically; any review that is substantially modified as a result of objection must be re-submitted for approval. Ugh (in some respects, mostly the delay). > > -- > 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 > 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 > Before I built a wall I'd ask to know > What I was walling in or walling out, > And to whom I was like to give offense. > - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2015 20:37:26 UTC