Proposing a new WG and appeal - Re: New Editor's draft

A couple of things we could consider in removing activities, and 
shifting rules from activities to WGs.

1. Currently, if Members want a WG and the Team does not agree, there is 
no way to initiate an AC Review of a proposed WG charter. The normal 
process should be to work through the team because of the impact on team 
resources, but if Members want a WG and the Team refuses there could be 
some way to appeal and if successful have an AC Review of a WG charter. 
(given this would likely be about Team resources a successful appeal 
followed by a successful AC review could lead to minimal Team resources 
for the WG).

2. Current wording for AC appeal of a Director Decision to create, 
modify or extend Activities requires a dissent during the review. That 
implies appeals happen only when the Director approves, not when the 
Director rejects.  When this moves to be about WG Charters instead, it 
should be clear that the AC can also appeal a decision to reject the WG 
Charter by the Director (with no requirement for dissent in the AC 
review in that case).


On 2014-08-14 05:16, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> There is a new 14 August editor's draft of the Process, as the first 
> step in developing "Process2015".
>
> As always it's at 
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html and the 
> Mercurial changelog is https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/
>
> As with the current (1 August) Process, it is a single-page document.
>
> The first change in this draft is to remove Activities - like Domains 
> (which have never been mentioned in the Process) these are an internal 
> management device, and the Advisory Board resolved a number of times 
> since 2006 to remove them from "the next version of the Process".
>
> There are still a bit of text left in chapter 5, for things that would 
> obvioously change the normative requirements if they were simply 
> deleted. E.g., charters don't require any review to be extended, but 
> Activities did. I'd like to have explicit resolutions for what we do 
> with these dangling bits.
>
> I also simplified the acknowledgements section.
>
> The old chapters are still in the repository. So far only acks.html, 
> activities.html and to a lesser extent groups.html are noticeably 
> different from the content of the single-page version, but I expect 
> more divergence as we do more work. So at some point soon I'll update 
> them to point to the single-page version.
>
> Note that I have tried to make sure we haven't lost any #fragmentID 
> since the 2005 Process (although the ones related to activities now 
> point to things in the changelog).
>
> There are various other changes I would like to make (largely removing 
> things), but I'll write proposals based on specific issues. And there 
> are outstanding issues where people wanted to add brand-new 
> requirements. Let the games begin…
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>

Received on Monday, 25 August 2014 22:56:07 UTC