Re: process section 6.4 CR - sentence in the wrong place (so unclear what it refers to)

On 2016-05-11 09:26, Wayne Carr wrote:
> In the W3C Process section 6.4 on the Candidate Recommendation stage, 
> it says: "If there was any dissent 
> <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#def-Dissent> to the Working 
> Group decision to request advancement Advisory Committee 
> <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#AC> representatives /may/ 
> appeal <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#ACAppeal> the 
> decision to advance the technical report."
> https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#candidate-rec
>
> That sentence appears after the usual paragraph on possible next steps 
> (publish another revised CR or move to PR, etc.). Appearing after next 
> steps section makes it unclear what request for advancement is subject 
> to appeal.  If it is only about the advancement to CR, not the request 
> for advancement in a next step after that, it should move above that 
> next steps section. (generally it is clearer if next steps is last 
> like it is for FPWD).
>
> Also, the link to appeal in the text is to AC appeal, so this is an 
> appeal of the Director's decision to advance.  It isn't an appeal of 
> the WG decision to ask to advance, so it should say "the Director's 
> decision" rather than "the Decision".
>
> I thought we could clean up that wording as part of the effort to fix 
> up AC appeals.
>
>

from https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#ACAppeal
[[

Advisory Committee representatives /may/ always appeal the following 
decisions:

  * Working or Interest Group extension
    <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#charter-extension> or
    closure <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#GeneralTermination>,
  * Call for Implementations
    <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#candidate-rec>, Call for
    Review of a Proposed Recommendation
    <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#cfr>, Call for Review of
    an Edited Recommendation
    <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#cfr-edited>, or Proposal
    to Rescind a Recommendation
    <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#proposed-rescinded-rec>

]]

Note: "Call for Implementations" is not referred to anywhere else in the 
Process Document, but it links to Candidate Recommendation (and is used 
elsewhere to refer to the decision for advancement to CR) so the text 
should change to "Advancement to Candidate Recommendation".

The sentence I asked to move should be dropped, since it is inconsistent 
with always being able to appeal those decisions.

>
>
>
>
>