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

RE: Revising 7.2 Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives (was Re; Agenda Process Document ...)

From: Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 15:39:11 +0000
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <52F8A45B68FD784E8E4FEE4DA9C6E52A9D998F8B@ORSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.com>


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel Glazman [mailto:daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com]
>Sent: Monday, 20 June, 2016 03:21
>To: public-w3process@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Revising 7.2 Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives
>(was Re; Agenda Process Document ...)
>
>On 20/06/2016 08:43, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
>> 7.2 Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives
>>
>>
>>
>> Process2016; "When Advisory Committee review immediately precedes a
>> decision, Advisory Committee representatives may only appeal when
>> there is dissent<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-
>Dissent>."
>>
>>
>>
>> REPLACEMENT:"When a W3C decision is made following an Advisory
>> Committee review<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-
>20150428/#ACReview>
>> of a proposal, Advisory Committee representatives MAY initiate an
>> Advisory Committee appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-
>20150428/#ACAppeal>.
>>
>>
>>
>> As noted below, this simplifies the process by removing (an apparently
>> unnecessary) constraint: the requirement for "dissent." The
>> requirement for endorsement of an appeal request by 5% of the
>> Membership is already a very strong constraint on frivolous appeals.
>> The only major down side is the need to wait 3 weeks to see if an
>> appeal attempt is made, but many W3C decisions require time to
>implement anyway.
>
>This 5% threshold has always seemed to me highly underspecified. The
>current prose says the Team must send an announcement to the AC and
>provide an address for comments, that leads, through that 5% threshold, to
>an appeal vote.
>
>1. comments are not approvals or disapprovals and I don't understand
>   how you can count 5%. How would you count a "yes but..."?
>
>3. "an address" is not a WBS vote form
>
>In my opinion, the last paragraph of current section 7.2 needs a rather deep
>revamp.

I think it's fairly clear that "5% or more of the Advisory Committee support the appeal request" means they are saying "yes, I want the vote".  " The Team must announce the appeal process to the Advisory Committee and provide an address for comments from Advisory Committee representatives" means the team can choose to provide an email address or a Web page to record answers on.    We don't need to specify that.  If 5% of the AC can't manage to clearly say "yes, I want the vote" then the request for a vote should probably fail anyway.

I'd get rid of "(explained in detail in the New Member Orientation)".  AC reps can ask and it removes some unnecessary words in the process.

Current text:
[[
An Advisory Committee representative initiates an appeal by sending a request to the Team (explained in detail in the New Member Orientation). The Team must announce the appeal process to the Advisory Committee and provide an address for comments from Advisory Committee representatives. The archive of these comments must be Member-visible. If, within one week of the Team's announcement, 5% or more of the Advisory Committee support the appeal request, the Team must organize an appeal vote asking the Advisory Committee to approve or reject the decision.
]]
>
></Daniel>
Received on Monday, 20 June 2016 15:39:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 20 June 2016 15:39:48 UTC