RE: Review comments on 3 March 2015 Process Editor's draft

Wayne,
Thank you for your careful review of the document. As I see it, a number of your comments (1-4 and 8) are editorial and should be easy to fix. There as some, however, that bear discussion prior to agreeing on a fix. My comments on these are inline below.

Steve Z

From: Wayne Carr [mailto:wayne.carr@linux.intel.com]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 4:35 PM
To: Charles McCathieNevile
Cc: W3C Process Community Group
Subject: Review comments on 3 March 2015 Process Editor's draft

Review comments on 3 March 2015 Process Editor's draft

1. Introduction -- probably should be one or more ... charters.  The link for "new" is to something about activities.  In the introduction "When there is enough interest in a topic (e.g., after a successful Workshop and/or discussion on an Advisory Committee mailing list<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#ACCommunication>), the Director announces the development of a proposal for one or more new<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#ActivityDevelopment> or Interest Group or Working Group charter<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#WGCharterDevelopment>, depending on the breadth of the topic of interest."

2. Section 2.2 The Team. "assessing consensus<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#def-Consensus> within W3C for architectural choices, publication of technical reports<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#Reports>, and new activities;"  It used to be "Activities", but that's a place where making it lower case doesn't work.  Probably should be "Groups" rather than "activities".

3. Section 2.5.2 "NOT REQUIRED" instead of "not required"

4. section 6.2.1 "MAY" instead of "may"

5. Section 6.2.2 "Advisory Committee representatives may  express their general support on the  Advisory Committee discussion list ."    sounds like they can only approve :)  s/general support/opinion of the proposal/
[SZ] Another way to say this is: s/general support/support or concerns/
I suspect that there will be agreement to make a change, but we need to decide which change.

6. Section 6.2.5 on Charter extension.  "The announcement must indicate the newduration, which must not exceed the duration of the Activity to which the group belongs.  duration."   WGs and IGs should not be able to continue indefinitely without AC having a chance to decide if it still makes sense, even if the charter doesn't change.  Charter extensions should be to avoid wasting time on a review when a WG is near completion or if an attempt at rechartering failed or was delayed by forces outside the WG, but not to indefinitely continue work without AC review.  That should be no more than 3 months after the expiration date on the last Charter that was approved by the AC.  If this isn't done, then Charters should be required to list the Date they were approved through the AC review process and the original expiration date.  It is time consuming now to try to figure out what Charters were extended and for how long.  For instance, what is the WG with the longest duration since approval thorough AC Review?  Is it common to have total extensions beyond say 6 months?  It doesn't seem easy to figure that out.
[SZ] The AB at is meeting on 12 February is summarized as follows
14. Charter Expiration [Resolution on advice from AB]
-----------------------------------------------------

The Advisory Board returned to its discussion of out-of-charter groups and
the mechanisms W3M proposed to adopt, and took the following resolution:

1. Charter expiration sync to quarter boundaries
2. Each quarter the Team looks at the charters expiring in the current and
next quarters
3. Once a charter expires, the Group is restrained from publishing after a
1 week grace period
4. Director extensions should be used sparingly
5. Members should not be permitted to join a WG whose charter has expired
This is, of course, advice to the Team, but it does cover many of the concerns you raise. Should these “rules” become part of the Process? Perhaps we should wait to see how this change works in practice. There have been a number of cases where revising the charter for an existing group seems to take an awfully long time.

7. skipping errata, separate post on that[SZ]  I will comment on that message separately.

8. Section 8. "has exercised the role of assessing consensus after an Advisory Committee review<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#ACReview> of an Charter Proposal<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#CharterReview>, after a Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#cfr>, after a Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#cfr-edited>, after a Proposal to Rescind a W3C Recommendation<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#proposed-rescinded-rec>, and after a Proposed Process Document<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#GAProcess> review."

s/an Charter Proposal/a Charter Proposal/

"after a Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#cfr>"  appears twice.  second one is probably proposed edited recommendation.

9. Section 8.2 appeals by AC.

"When Advisory Committee review immediately precedes a decision, Advisory Committee representatives may only appeal when there is dissent ."  That's true only when the Director approves some proposal.  If there are no Formal Objections in the AC and the Director rejects the proposal, obviously we can appeal that one too.   The requirement that there be a dissent is intended to mean if there are no formal objections, the AC can't appeal the Director approving it.  It doesn't mean, the AC can't appeal the Director rejecting it.
[SZ] I wonder if the definition of “dissent” is too strong in the AC Review case. Based on my experience with other standards organizations, I would have originally interpreted the term as meaning having voted “no” on the AC Review, but the W3C definition requires a Formal Objection in the AC Review. That does mean that frivolous appeals are less likely. If the weaker definition of “dissent” is used, then one can interpret the Director not approving a Proposed Recommendation that you voted “yes” on as “dissent”; you voted in opposition to the decision. (I am not proposing changing the definition of “dissent” in section 3.3 for most groups because their consensus is not assessed by the Director.) Perhaps, if people are OK with the weaker notion of “dissent” for the appeals to AC Review decisions, then the final phrase could be, “Advisory Committee representatives MAY only appeal when they have voted in opposition to the announced decision.”
There is also the appeal of a decision to relicense an abandoned, unfinished specification http://www.w3.org/2014/12/relicense.html#decision<http://www.w3.org/2014/12/relicense.html> -- that should be added to the list of appeals.