Re: Suggested Changes to clarify Appeals in the W3C Process Document

Steve,

Thanks for the clean-up.

As a reviewer, it would be interesting to me to have culled out 
separately those changes that are intended to clarify the wording (I 
believe that this refers to most of the cases), and those substantive 
changes that are intended to modify the process.

After a cursory glance, is the only substantive change the introduction 
of a possible AC appeal when the Director rejects a positive proposal, 
in sections 7.2 and 11?

Jeff

On 7/12/2015 7:09 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
> To implement a cleanup of the wording of “appeals” in the 2015 Process 
> Document, a suggested replacement wording follows the flags, 
> “REPLACEMENT:” or “ADDITION:”  In coming up with the suggested 
> changes, several principles were applied:
>
> A.Which of the three types of appeal is to be used MUST be explicitly 
> identified. The three types are:
>
> i.Group Decision Appeal
>
> ii.Submission Appeal
>
> iii.Advisory Committee Appeal
>
> B.Who can initiate the appeal MUST be identified (whether it is an 
> individual or an AC Representative)
>
> C.What is being appealed, what “decision” and who (chair, Director, 
> W3C or Team) made it MUST be identified.
>
> D.Note: Formal Objections are not strictly an “appeal”. They are 
> “registered” not “initiated” and they follow the document to which 
> they apply. A separate step, the Group Decision Appeal that asks the 
> Director to “confirm or deny a decision” (of the group) is the appeal 
> mechanism. Any individual may register a Formal Objection, but only 
> group participants may issue a Group Decision Appeal and if they 
> belong to a Member organization then they must do so through their AC 
> Representative.
>
> E.There should be a specification of what DOCUMENTATION should 
> accompany each type of appeal. This is specified for a Group Decision 
> Appeal.
>
> F.It was not clear to this author whether the word “appeal” should be 
> capitalized when it is used as a category name. I think it should, but 
> usage elsewhere in the Process Document suggests that it might not be 
> capitalized.
>
> TL;DR: The suggested changes below, I believe, address Issue-164 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>, Issue-165 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/165> and 
> Issue-167 <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/167>. 
> You have to read them to assess them.
>
> Steve Zilles
>
> 1 Introduction
>
> The Process Document promotes the goals of quality and fairness in 
> technical decisions by encouragingconsensus 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#Consensus>, requiring 
> reviews (by both Members and public) as part of the technical report 
> development process 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#Reports>, and through 
> anappeal process 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>for the Advisory 
> Committee.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “… through an Advisory Committee Appeal process 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>.”*
>
>
>       2.1 Members
>
> Advisory Committee representatives haveappeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>powers for some 
> processes described in this document.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “Advisory Committee representatives MAY initiate an 
> Advisory Committee Appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> for some of the 
> processes describe in this document.”*
>
>
>       2.2 The W3C Team
>
> TheDirectoris the lead technical architect at W3C. His 
> responsibilities are identified throughout this document in relevant 
> places Some key ones include: … "tie-breaker" forappeal of a Working 
> Group decision <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#WGAppeals>, …
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “… for a Group Decision Appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#WGAppeals>.”*
>
>
>       2.3 Advisory Board (AB)
>
> The Advisory Board hears appeals ofMember Submission requests 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo>that are 
> rejected for reasons unrelated to Web architecture; see also theTAG 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#TAG>.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “The Advisory Board hears a Submission Appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo> when a 
> Member Submission is rejected …”*
>
>
>       2.4 Technical Architecture Group (TAG)
>
> The TAG hears appeals ofMember Submission requests 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo>that are 
> rejected for reasons related to Web architecture; see also theAdvisory 
> Board <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AB>.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “The TAG hears a Submission Appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo> when a 
> Member Submission is rejected …”*
>
> For some TAG discussions (e.g., an appeal of arejected Member 
> Submission request 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo>), the TAG 
> /may/use a list that will beMember-only 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#Member-only>.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “For some TAG discussions (e.g., a Submission Appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo>), …”*
>
>
>       3.5 Appeal of a Chair's Decision
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “3.5 Appeal of Group Decisions”*
>
> Groups resolve issues through dialog. Individuals who disagree 
> strongly with a decision/should/register with the Chair anyFormal 
> Objections 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#FormalObjection>(e.g., to 
> a decision made as the result of a vote 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#Votes>).
>
> When group participants believe that their concerns are not being duly 
> considered by the group, they/may/ask theDirector 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Director>(for 
> representatives of a Member organization, via their Advisory Committee 
> representative) to confirm or deny the decision. The 
> participants/should/also make their requests known to theTeam Contact 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#TeamContact>. The Team 
> Contact/must/inform the Director when a group participant has raised 
> concerns about due process.
>
> *ADDITION: (following, “confirm or deny the decision.”) This is called 
> a Group Decision Appeal.*
>
> Any requests to the Director to confirm a decision/must/include a 
> summary of the issue (whether technical or procedural), decision, and 
> rationale for the objection. All counter-arguments, rationales, and 
> decisions/must/be recorded.
>
> Procedures forAdvisory Committee appeals 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>are described 
> separately.
>
> *NO OTHER CHANGES ARE SUGGESTED IN THIS MESSAGE*
>
>
>         5.2.4Call for Participation in a Working Group or Interest Group
>
> Advisory Committee representatives/may/appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>creation or 
> substantive modification of a Working Group or Interest Group charter.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “Advisory Committee representatives /MAY/ initiate an 
> Advisory Committee appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> to the W3C 
> Decision to create or substantively modify *a Working Group or 
> Interest Group charter.”
>
>
>         5.2.5Working Group and Interest Group Charter Extension
>
> Advisory Committee representatives/may/appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>the extension of 
> a Working Group or Interest Group charter.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “Advisory Committee representatives MAY initiate an 
> Advisory Committee appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> to the 
> Director’s Decision to extend the charter of a Working Group or 
> Interest Group.”*
>
>
>         5.2.8Working Group and Interest Group Closure
>
> The Director, subject toappeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>by Advisory 
> Committee representatives,/may/close a group prior to the date 
> specified in the charter in any of the following circumstances:
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “The Director, subject to an Advisory Committee appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> initiated by 
> Advisory Committee representatives, /MAY/ decide to close …”*
>
>
>       6.4 Candidate Recommendation
>
> If there was anydissent 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent>to the 
> Working Group decision to request advancementAdvisory Committee 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AC>representatives/may/appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>the decision to 
> advance the technical report.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “If there was any dissent 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent> to the 
> Working Group decision to request advancement, Advisory Committee 
> representatives MAY initiate an Advisory Committee appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> to the W3C 
> Decision to advance the technical report.”*
>
>
>       6.6 W3C Recommendation
>
>   * If there was anydissent
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent>in
>     Advisory Committee reviews, the Director/must/publish the
>     substantive content of the dissent to W3C and the general public,
>     and/must/formally address
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#formal-address> the
>     comment at least 14 days before publication as a W3C
>     Recommendation. In this case theAdvisory Committee
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AC>/may/appeal
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>the decision,
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “•     If there was any dissent 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent> in the 
> Advisory Committee review 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACReview>, the Director 
> /MUST/ publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C and the 
> general public, and /MUST/ formally address 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#formal-address> the 
> comment at least 14 days before publication as a W3C Recommendation. 
> In this case or if the Director rejects the proposal despite positive 
> reviews, Advisory Committee representatives may initiate an Advisory 
> Committee Appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> to the W3C 
> Decision.”*
>
>
>       6.9 Rescinding a W3C Recommendation
>
> If there was anydissent 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent>in Advisory 
> Committee reviews, the Director/must/publish the substantive content 
> of the dissent to W3C*and the public*, and/must/formally address 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#formal-address>the 
> comment at least 14 days before publication as a Rescinded 
> Recommendation. In this case theAdvisory Committee 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AC>/may/appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>the decision.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “•     If there was any dissent 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent> in the 
> Advisory Committee review 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACReview>, the Director 
> /MUST/ publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C and the 
> general public, and /MUST/ formally address 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#formal-address> the 
> comment at least 14 days before publication as a Rescinded 
> Recommendation. In this case or if the Director rejects the proposal 
> despite positive reviews, Advisory Committee representatives may 
> initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> to the W3C 
> Decision.”*
>
>
>     7 Advisory Committee Reviews, Appeals, and Votes
>
> This section describes how the Advisory Committee reviews proposals 
> from the Director and how Advisory Committee representatives appeal 
> W3C decisions and decisions by the Director. AW3C decisionis one where 
> the Director (or the Director's delegate) has exercised the role of 
> assessing consensus after anAdvisory Committee review 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACReview>of anCharter 
> Proposal <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#CharterReview>, 
> after aCall for Review of a Proposed Recommendation 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#cfr>, after aCall for 
> Review of a Proposed Recommendation 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#cfr-edited>, after 
> aProposal to Rescind a W3C Recommendation 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#proposed-rescinded-rec>, 
> and after aProposed Process Document 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#GAProcess>review.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “This section describes how the Advisory Committee 
> reviews proposals from the Director and how Advisory Committee 
> representatives initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal of a W3C 
> decision or a Director’s decision. A /W3C decision/ is one where the 
> Director (or the Director's delegate) has exercised the role of 
> assessing consensus after an Advisory Committee review 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACReview>.”*
>
> **
>
> *[the remaining portion of the above paragraph, the list of 
> “proposals” is eliminated as redundant. For this to work, however, it 
> will be necessary for all the sections that involve making a W3C 
> Decision to be updated to state that explicitly. Section 6.6 W3C 
> Recommendation already says, “*The decision to advance a document to 
> Recommendation is aW3C Decision 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-w3c-decision>.”*]
> *
>
>
>       7.2 Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives
>
> When Advisory Committee review immediately precedes a decision, 
> Advisory Committee representatives/may/only appeal when there 
> isdissent <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent>.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “When a W3C decision is made following an Advisory 
> Committee review 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACReview> of a proposal, 
> Advisory Committee representatives /MAY/ only initiate an Advisory 
> Committee appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> when either 
> there is dissent 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent> or the 
> Director rejects the proposal despite positive reviews.*
>
> These decisions are:
>
>   * Publication of a Recommendation
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#rec-publication>orPublication
>     of a Rescinded Recommendation
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#proposed-rescinded-rec>,
>   * Working or Interest Group creation
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#cfp>,
>     substantivemodification
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#CharterReview>orextension
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#charter-extension>,
>   * Changes to theW3C process
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#GAProcess>.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “These W3C decisions are identified in the sections that 
> explain the requirements for the decisions and include decisions 
> related to group creation and modification, certain maturity levels 
> for Recommendation Track documents and the Process document.*
>
> Advisory Committee representatives/may/always appeal the following 
> decisions:
>
>   * Working or Interest Group extension
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#charter-extension>orclosure
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#GeneralTermination>,
>   * Call for Implementations
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#candidate-rec>,Call
>     for Review of a Proposed Recommendation
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#cfr>,Call for Review
>     of an Edited Recommendation
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#cfr-edited>,
>     orProposal to Rescind a Recommendation
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#proposed-rescinded-rec>
>   * the Director's intention to sign aMemorandum of Understanding
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#mou>with another
>     organization.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “Advisory Committee representatives /MAY/ also initiate 
> an appeal for certain Director’s decisions that do not involve an 
> Advisory Committee review. These, too, are identified in the sections 
> which describe the requirements for the Director’s decision and 
> include additional (non-reviewed) maturity levels of Recommendation 
> Track documents, group charter extensions and closures, and 
> Memorandums of Understanding.”*
>
> [Note: the above two replacements are suggested as the resolution to 
> Issue-165 <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/165>, 
> but still leave the problem of solving Issue-166 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/166>]
>
> In all cases, an appeal/must/be initiated withinthree weeksof the 
> decision.
>
> An Advisory Committee representative initiates an appeal by sending a 
> request to the Team (explained in detail in theNew Member Orientation 
> <http://www.w3.org/Member/Intro>). The Team/must/announce the appeal 
> process to the Advisory Committee and provide an address for comments 
> from Advisory Committee representatives. The archive of these 
> comments/must/be Member-visible. If, within one weekof the Team's 
> announcement, 5% or more of the Advisory Committee support the appeal 
> request, the Team/must/organize an appeal vote asking the Advisory 
> Committee to approve or reject the decision.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “… the Team MUST organize an appeal vote with a four 
> week balloting period asking the Advisory Committee to approve or 
> reject the decision. A majority of the votes received decides the 
> appeal.”*
>
> *[NOTE: there is no explanation of “sending an appeal request to the 
> Team” at the site the “New Member Orientation” link goes to. I would 
> suggest that a paragraph similar to that in section 3.5 should replace 
> the first sentence in the paragraph above. For example,]*
>
> *“An Advisory Committee representative initiates an an Advisory Board 
> Appeal by sending a request to ??? That request MUST include a summary 
> of the issue (whether technical or procedural), decision, and 
> rationale for the objection. All counter-arguments, rationales, and 
> decisions SHOULD be recorded. [the “???” is because I do not know what 
> address such requests should be sent to.]*
>
>
>       7.3 Advisory Committee Votes
>
> The Advisory Committee votes inelections for seats on the TAG or 
> Advisory Board 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AB-TAG-elections>, and in 
> the event of a formal appeal of aW3C decision 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-w3c-decision>.
>
> //
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “…and in the event of an Advisory Committee Appeal 
> achieving the required support to trigger an appeal vote.”*
>
>
>     9 Liaisons
>
> The W3C Director/may/negotiate and sign aMemorandum of Understanding 
> (MoU)with another organization. Before signing the MoU, the 
> Team/must/inform the Advisory Committee of the intent to sign and make 
> the MoU available for Advisory Committee review; the Advisory 
> Committee/may/appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “… and make the MoU available to the Advisory 
> Committee;**Advisory Committee representatives MAY initiate an 
> Advisory Committee appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> to the decision 
> to sign the MoU.*
>
> [Note the use of “Advisory Committee review” in the original paragraph 
> seems to be an misstatement; it should only have meant that the AC 
> Representatives can see the document rather than a formal AC Review 
> was conducted. That is supported by what is in section 7.2 which says 
> the decision to sign is always appealable.]
>
>
>     10 Member Submission Process
>
>   * Ifrejected
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo>, the
>     Submitter(s)/may/appeal to either theTAG
>     <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#TAG>or theAdvisory
>     Board <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AB>.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “•     If rejected 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo>, the 
> Submitter(s) MAY initiate a Submission Appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo> of the 
> Team’s decision to either the TAG 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#TAG> or the Advisory 
> Board <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AB>.”*
>
>
>       10.4 Rejection of a Submission Request
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “10.4 Rejection of a Submission Request and Submission 
> Appeals*
>
> The Advisory Committee representative(s) of the 
> Submitters(s)/may/appeal the rejection to theTAG 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#TAG>if the reasons are 
> related to Web architecture, or to theAdvisory Board 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AB>if the request is 
> rejected for other reasons. In this case the Team/should/make 
> available its rationale for the rejection to the appropriate body. The 
> Team will establish a process for such appeals that ensures the 
> appropriatelevel of confidentiality 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#confidentiality-levels>.
>
>
>     11 Process Evolution
>
> 1.After the Advisory Committee review 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACReviewAfter>, if there 
> is consensus, the Team enacts the new process officially by announcing 
> theW3C decision 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-w3c-decision>to the 
> Advisory Committee. If there was dissent 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent>, Advisory 
> Committee representatives/may/appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>the decision.
>
> *REPLACEMENT: “… to the Advisory Committee. Advisory Committee 
> representatives /MAY/ initiate an Advisory Committee appeal 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> to the W3C 
> decision when either there is dissent 
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent> or the 
> Director rejects the proposal despite positive reviews.”*
>