W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > March 2015

Re: w3process-ACTION-47: Produce a proposal for addressing wayne's "comment 9" - allowing appeal where the director's decision isn't the same as the proposal sent for review.

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:30:56 -0700
Cc: chaals@yandex-team.ru, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <michael.champion@microsoft.com>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <709C2BB8-01A9-49EB-8480-443AC848EB6F@apple.com>
To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Overall, the whole question of appeals badly needs a cleanup.  In some places it says an AC Rep can initiate an appeal, in some other it says the AC (but I think it means the Rep.).  It’s clear that 5% of the AC have to agree to the appeal to cause a vote (within a week), but then is silent on whether there is a quorum requirement for the vote itself, and what the passage requirement is (50%? of those voting?).  How long is the voting period?  And so on.

> On Mar 18, 2015, at 14:14 , Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Alternate text to correct the problem:
> Current: "When Advisory Committee review immediately precedes a decision, Advisory Committee representatives MAY only appeal when there is dissent. "
> Proposed: "When Advisory Committee review immediately precedes a decision and the Director approves the proposal, Advisory Committee representatives MAY only appeal when there is dissent. “

so you want it to say that there can be appeal if either (a) there was dissent in the AC vote or (b) the Director’s decision is contrary to the unanimous (among those voting) opinion of the AC?

like I say, I get what you are saying, but has that ever happened? will it?  The Director already knew that there was a unanimous position, and went the other way.  Why would he do that, if a single appeal could trigger a vote that might override him?  

If we don’t make this change, what other course does the community have?  

Let’s say the AC, in a rare display of unity, REJECTS something. The Director then says ‘yes’, despite the entire community saying ‘heck, no’ (or at least the 3 who voted). Seems very unlikely.

 Let’s say the AC accepts something.  The Director says ‘no’, despite the entire community (well, both voting) saying ‘yes’. Can’t they just ask again (e.g. ask the chair to make a trivial change to the document and re-request the transition)?

> The text is trying to get rid of the case where the director approves, no one disagreed in the AC review and then an AC rep appeals because, while they didn't submit a review, they later decide they don't like it.  But, it also removed the case where there was no dissent because everyone in the AC approved, but the director rejected it.
> Not a big deal, but why needlessly have this wrong when there is a trivial wording fix?

The wording is not the hard part…it’s the likelihood.

>  But do we want:
> - AC cannot appeal a rejection when every AC rep who submitted a review disagrees with the Director
> - AC can appeal a rejection when  every AC rep who submitted a review agrees with the Director

no, there has to be dissent.  Some on one side, some the other.

>>> I'd think no one intends for that to be the case.  It's an error due to wording.  What the wording is trying to say is that the AC cannot appeal in the following case:
>>> Example 2:  AC Review on publishing a Recommendation.  400 AC reps approve publishing.  0 formal objections.  The Director approves publication.  The AC cannot appeal.  No AC member can ask to override if there were no formal objections in the AC review.  That's good, but they worded it so it also bans appeal if the Director rejects publishing when no one objects to publishing!
>> I think that may be intentional.
> right, it's a wording error.

I said it may be *intentional*.  The Director can say “you goofballs all think this is a good idea, but I am The Director!” This is like a presidential veto.

For all the principles, the W3C is formally a Monarchy (Dictatorship, whatever): we only ‘advise’…

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2015 23:31:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 18 March 2015 23:31:27 UTC