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

Re: dropping the request -> Re: w3process-ACTION-47: Produce a proposal for addressing wayne's "comment 9" - allowing appeal where the director's decision isn't the same as the proposal sent for review.

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:46:14 -0400
Message-ID: <550B3596.2040106@w3.org>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
CC: public-w3process@w3.org


On 3/19/2015 4:36 PM, David Singer wrote:
>> 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).

In practice, the team assesses whether they anticipate that the 
modifications are sufficiently substantial that it will invalidate the 
previously positive reviews.  If the team is concerned that it might 
invalidate those reviews, the team sends it out for another round of AC 
review.  If the team assessment is correct, there is no problem.

If the team incorrectly assesses that reviewers would be satisfied with 
the changes, then it does introduce the case that David and David are 
concerned about.

>
>
>> -- 
>> 𝄞   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 20:46:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 19 March 2015 20:46:29 UTC