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

AC should be able to appeal when director makes substantive changes and then approves

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 10:59:34 -0700
To: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <57337306.9040003@linux.intel.com>
In the the W3C Process section 7.2, it should say:

"When Advisory Committee review immediately precedes a decision, 
Advisory Committee representatives /may/ appeal rejection of the 
proposal by the Director, and may appeal approval if  there was dissent 
<https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#def-Dissent> or if the 
Director approved _substantive changes_ to the proposal after the review."

Section 7.1.2 says that one of the options for the Director after AC 
Review is: "The proposal is approved, possibly with substantive changes 
integrated. In this case the Director's announcement /must/ include 
rationale for the decision to advance the document despite the proposal 
for a substantive change."

The AC should be able to appeal if what is approved is substantively 
different than what they reviewed.  Also, the AC should be able to 
appeal if the Director rejects the proposal.

(The current wording in that section appears to allow the AC to appeal a 
Director rejection of a proposal, but only if someone in the AC agreed 
with the Director about rejecting the proposal and dissented. I think 
the idea was the director would never reject any proposal because no 
proposal could ever be made unless the Director agreed ahead of time.  
But, we shouldn't count on that always being true and should be able to 
appeal a rejection.).

Current text of W3C Process section 7.2:
When Advisory Committee review immediately precedes a decision, Advisory 
Committee representatives /may/ only appeal when there is dissent 
<https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#def-Dissent>. These decisions 

  * Publication of a Recommendation
    <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#rec-publication> or
    Publication of a Rescinded Recommendation
  * Working or Interest Group creation
    <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#cfp>, substantive
    <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#CharterReview> or
    extension <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#charter-extension>,
  * Changes to the W3C process

Advisory Committee representatives /may/ always appeal the following 

  * 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
  * the Director's intention to sign a Memorandum of Understanding
    <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#mou> with another

Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2016 17:59:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 May 2016 17:59:59 UTC