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: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 14:57:35 -0700
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-id: <5C32E198-E81F-443E-BC0A-A78CABDF336C@apple.com>
To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>

> On Mar 19, 2015, at 13:54 , Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2015-03-19 13:36, 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).
> 
> or just allow an appeal and not have the overhead when no one objects.  (so if it bugs someone, they appeal.  if it doesn't, it's done).  

The snag comes β€˜how long do they have to lodge an appeal?’  If it’s comparable to the length of time for a charter approval, it may as well be a (re-)approval.

> For that list of decisions after AC Review that can be appealed, the only exclusion not allowing appeal should be approval of the proposal without substantive change with no AC Review dissent (formal objection).  i.e. everyone agreed and nothing changed so even though its in the list, no appeal in that case.

And indeed if a re-review is requested, you can’t now comment on unchanged material!

> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -- 
>>> π„ž   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.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2015 21:58:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 19 March 2015 21:58:07 UTC