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: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 12:28:25 -0700
Cc: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <17281389-8D43-4DBD-9615-38DF690AE212@mac.com>
To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Exactly

I am wondering whether we can have a catch-all phrase such as Wayne writes, and remove:

5.2.4: Advisory Committee representatives may appeal creation or substantive modification of a Working Group or Interest Group charter.
5.2.5: Advisory Committee representatives may appeal the extension of a Working Group or Interest Group charter.
5.2.8: The Director, subject to appeal by Advisory Committee representatives, may close a group prior…
6.4[.0]: If there was any dissent to the Working Group decision to request advancement Advisory Committee representatives may appeal the decision to advance the technical report.
6.6: In this case [ed: there was dissent] the Advisory Committee may appeal the decision,
6.9: In this case [ed: there was dissent] the Advisory Committee may appeal the decision.

and simply say:

For all cases 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. The Advisory Committee may also appeal decisions not preceded by a review in the following cases… 

In the appeals section.

(Or even “appeal any decision that was contrary to their unopposed advice, or if there was dissent in the review”).

> On May 12, 2016, at 11:31 , Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Dave Singer

singer@mac.com
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2016 19:29:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 12 May 2016 19:29:14 UTC