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

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

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:31:26 -0700
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, David Singer <singer@mac.com>
Cc: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5734CBFE.2060604@linux.intel.com>
I think David is supporting the centralized list of appeals.  He's 
talking about all the random mentions of appeals elsewhere.  I'd 
mentioned an error in one of those that should be deleted.  I also 
mentioned 2 appeals missing from the centralized section and I think the 
wording needs to be corrected in the centralized section.

I think the centralized section is essential to make it clear where the 
AC actually has decision making power (and by absence where it doesn't).

On 2016-05-12 11:18, Stephen Zilles wrote:
> David,
> We previously agreed to remove the I'll maintained list of appeals and 
> to put the appeal statements in the sections that define appeals ke 
> actions. I believe that this was implemented in the 2015 Process. Are 
> you not advocating a reversal of that decision? If so I would be 
> opposed to it. It is much more useful to know if an action is 
> appealable (and to maintain that information) as part of the action 
> and not in some separate section.
> Steve Z
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7 edge, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> -------- Original message --------
> From: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
> Date: 5/12/16 9:26 PM (GMT+03:30)
> To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: AC should be able to appeal when director makes 
> substantive changes and then approves
> I support the idea of removing the rather random mentions of appeal 
> from all over the document, and having a single central definition of 
> when the AC can appeal.
> > On May 11, 2016, at 10:59 , Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> 
> wrote:
> >
> > 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 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. These decisions are:
> >         Publication of a Recommendation or Publication of a 
> Rescinded Recommendation,
> >         Working or Interest Group creation, substantive 
> modification or extension,
> >         Changes to the W3C process.
> > Advisory Committee representatives may always appeal the following 
> decisions:
> >
> >         Working or Interest Group extension or closure,
> >         Call for Implementations, Call for Review of a Proposed 
> Recommendation, Call for Review of an Edited Recommendation, or 
> Proposal to Rescind a Recommendation
> >         the Director's intention to sign a Memorandum of 
> Understanding with another organization.
> > ]]
> Dave Singer
> singer@mac.com
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2016 18:31:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 12 May 2016 18:31:56 UTC