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

Re: New Draft

From: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 09:29:28 -0700
Cc: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Message-id: <A64BAD40-911A-4B76-8AC6-732F389B9F62@mac.com>
To: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>

> On Aug 2, 2016, at 9:18 , Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
> 
> As I read it with my editors' hat on:
> 
> The AB determined that this should be removed, as I was notified by the chair.
> 
> Since it is the AB's document, it is perfectly reasonable for them to direct the editor to make change.
> 
> Comments, and especially proposed changes, that are not sent to the community group cause confusion.
> 
> I agree with the rationale as I understood it:
> 1. it makes little sense to make statements of the form "there are things outside the process, and this rule applies to them" - if we need to address a particular issue, the process needs to be clear about what it is
> 2. Given the structure of W3C, if a group of members such as would be required to support an appeal actually object about *anything* we can expect a robust discussion.

I agree, particularly with point (2).

Look at it this way.  If a group of AC Reps comes to the AC, and Director, and says “we strongly object to <this decision>, and we number more than 5% of the AC — i.e. we exceed the threshold for a formal appeal under the process — and we request that the entire AC be asked their opinion on this question”, I think it’s highly unlikely that the answer would be “run away, that’s not a formally appealable decision under the process”, but more likely “ah, we’d better have a frank and honest exchange of views in the AC”.

So, I think the process needs to be clear about when decisions *in the process* have exhausted appeal possibilities, but it does NOT need to be exhaustive about what can be appealed.

> 
> cheers
> 
> Chaals
> 
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 15:20:43 +0200, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7 edge, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> 
> Date: 8/2/16 07:58 (GMT-06:00) 
> To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: Re: New Draft 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> I don't understand the logic of this.
> 
> SZ: The logic is: the process defines how appeals are made and says that the decisions that are appealable are identified with the description of the decision. The sentence in question says some of those decisions might not be specified in the process document. This was done to avoid trying to list all appealable decisions in the process document so it is a simplification. Previously we had tried to list all such decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> Steve Z
> 
> 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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> chaals@yandex-team.ru <mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru> - - - Find more at http://yandex.com <http://yandex.com/>
Dave Singer

singer@mac.com
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2016 16:30:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 2 August 2016 16:30:01 UTC