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: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 23:25:37 +0000
To: "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>, David Singer <singer@mac.com>
CC: "daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BY1PR02MB1114BFE4040AB488BA40911DAE2C0@BY1PR02MB1114.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carr, Wayne [mailto:wayne.carr@intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 11:49 AM
> To: David Singer <singer@mac.com>; Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
> Cc: daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com; public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Revising 7.2 Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives (was
> Re; Agenda Process Document ...)
> 
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: David Singer [mailto:singer@mac.com]
> >Sent: Tuesday, 21 June, 2016 05:07
> >To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
> >Cc: daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com; public-w3process@w3.org
> >Subject: Re: Revising 7.2 Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives
> >(was Re; Agenda Process Document ...)
> >
> >
> >> On Jun 20, 2016, at 22:59 , Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----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.”
> >
> >That’s fine. The process should also define the period (I was going to
> >say minimum period, but that would allow the gathering-5% stage to be
> >indefinite.
> 
> That was dropped in this rewrite, it was " If, within one week of the Team's
> announcement, 5% or more of the Advisory Committee support the appeal
> request," so it was a 1 week period to gather the 5%.   The person making
> initiating the appeal could post directly to the AC and there could be a set email
> list to post support - then the 1 week clock could start when they make the
> request.

No, it was not dropped in the rewrite; I only rewrote the part of the paragraph that Daniel was complaining about. With this rewrite and the original rewrite the relevant paragraph becomes:
"An Advisory Committee representative initiates an appeal by sending a request to the Team. Within one week, the Team MUST announce the appeal to the Advisory Committee and provide a 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. 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 with a four week balloting period asking the Advisory Committee to approve or reject the decision. A majority of the votes received decides the appeal."

To deal with the question of handling the appellant request that I raised with the recent text proposal, I propose the following:
Change "announce the appeal" To "announce the appeal using text acceptable to the appellant and the Team"

I used "using text acceptable") because I am concerned about putting in any provision that anything a Member submits must be transmitted to the Membership as submitted; for example, ad hominem attacks should be removed. By saying "acceptable to the appellant and the Team" they can negotiate a suitable announcement and provide instructions to the Membership on how to respond to the appeal, something they are unlikely to have ever seen before. 
> 
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >I think it should simply state what the appellant says. The time for
> >interpretation is past if we’re into appeals.
> >
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Jul/0027.ht

> >> m
> >> l
> >>
> >> Steve Z
> >
> >Dave Singer
> >
> >singer@mac.com
> >

Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2016 23:26:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 22 June 2016 23:26:13 UTC