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: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 05:59:34 +0000
To: "daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BY1PR02MB1114251642D6F834B032A609AE2B0@BY1PR02MB1114.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Glazman [mailto:daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 1:45 PM
> To: public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Revising 7.2 Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives (was
> Re; Agenda Process Document ...)
> 
> On 20/06/2016 21:54, Carr, Wayne wrote:
> 
> > We don't need to put in the Process document exactly how the Team gets the
> information from the AC.  They can use a mail list, or an online form, or however
> they tell the AC how to indicate they support the request to have an AC vote on
> the appeal.  We don't need to have that level of detail in the Process document.
> 
> Wow. We're discussing an Appeal process and you think such a lose way of
> doing things would not attract, with a precise 5% threshold, a deep and fine
> review? I am thinking exactly the contrary, we're dealing here with one of our
> worst possible scenarios and we have to fence it off _very_ precisely to avoid
> any contestation.
> 
> </Daniel>

The current text of the relevant paragraph of 7.2 says,
"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."

As has been previously noted the last sentence does not define the balloting period (4 weeks as usual) nor how the vote will be assessed (the majority of votes decides). These changes were proposed in the changes specified in Suggested Changes to clarify Appeals in the W3C Process Document [1].

I believe that Daniel is correct in saying that the sentences, " 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. " are also lacking in detail. 

I would suggest the following:

"Within one week, the Team MUST announce the appeal to the Advisory Committee and provide place for the Advisory Committee representatives to respond with (1) a statement of support (yes, no or abstain) and (2) comments, as desired. The archive of these responses MUST be Member-visible."

I believe that this clarifies the requirements for responding without either defining what mechanism is to be used to seek the responses nor over-specifying what the Team must do. In particular it would allow a WBS to be used as long as it had a comment field.

One interesting sub-issue has to do with the announcement of the appeal. Should that use (or at least include) the text that that appellant provided to with his appeal request? I think it should certainly include the appellant's text, but may also have information provided by the Team.

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Jul/0027.html 

Steve Z
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2016 06:00:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 21 June 2016 06:00:09 UTC