W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > August 2016

Re: New Draft

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 08:58:12 -0400
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <240b6075-f448-5943-806f-073baab61c15@w3.org>
Steve,

I don't understand the logic of this.

As you say, appealing a Director's decision not to relicense is not part 
of the process.

So why in the world would there be a sentence IN THE PROCESS DOCUMENT 
which advises how appeals that are  not in the process should take 
place.  You've put something in the process document about items that 
are not part of the process.

Moreover, when I reviewed the changes in the Appeals section, I raised 
an issue that adding process text for cases that never happen is an 
anti-pattern for streamlining.  Your response [1] implied that the only 
area to look at was related to Issue-167. This now appears to be an 
incorrect reference causing me not to focus on the unstreamlined text 
that came from Issue-166.

Perhaps you actually would like relicensing to be part of the process.  
That would be a good item to introduce in Process2018.

I continue to recommend that we drop the sentence.

Jeff

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2016Jun/0007.html
On 8/1/2016 10:26 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: Chaals McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru]
>
> > removes the statement about appealing decisions that aren't 
> described by the
>
> > process - because if there are enough AC members to start an appeal 
> calling for
>
> > a discussion, it seems unlikely the discussion would not happen
>
> The statement that was removed was in put in to resolve Process 
> Issue-166 <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/166> 
> which says:
>
> Recently (last December) a policy for relicensing unfinished 
> specifications was promulgated by the Director:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2014OctDec/0049.html
>
> This policy has a provision for appealing a decision to relicense or 
> to not relicense.
>
> "Appeal
>
> If the Director decides not to relicense, the Advisory Committee may 
> appeal the decision. If the Director decides to relicense, the 
> Advisory Committee may appeal the decision only if there was a Formal 
> Objection. In both cases, W3C follows the AC appeal process."
>
> This policy is not, however, part of the Process Document, but is part 
> of W3C Policies.
>
> How should the existence of this appeal process be shown in the 
> Process Document?
>
> This was discussed in 
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/0114.html.
>
> Since not all appealable descisions are described in the process, the 
> (eliminated) sentence is necessary to indicate this fact and to 
> rrequire that such decisions that are outside the process are so 
> identified where they are specified.
>
> Note, we have separately agreed that the Process Document will not 
> have a list of all decisions that are appealable, but will, instead, 
> have a statement with each decision indicating if it is appealable and 
> which type of appeal can be initiated: 
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Jul/0027.html
>
> Please restore the removed text because, contrary to assertions made 
> on a non-public list, this topic has been previously discussed and 
> needs resolution.
>
> Steve Z
>
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2016 12:58:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 2 August 2016 12:58:19 UTC