Re: dropping the request -> 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.

> On Mar 19, 2015, at 12:38 , L. David Baron <> wrote:
> It's not clear to me if the current process allows an appeal if:
> 1. a charter is sent to the AC for review
> 2. some members support the charter, and some members object
> 3. changes are made to resolve the objections of all the objecting
>    members, leading to the withdrawal of those objections
> 4. the charter is approved
> 5. some of the members who supported the charter in (2) object to
>    the revisions from step (3)
> This doesn't seem all that far-fetched.
> I think the current wording is unclear because it's not clear if,
> after (3), it meets the criteria for there having been dissent, or
> if there's required to be a chance for objections to the revisions
> made in (3).  (I think typically such a chance is offered to AC reps
> who voted in support, although not those who didn't previously
> vote).
> -David

I agree, this has troubled me for a while:  if I formally object to a charter, I (and only I) get to negotiate what changes are needed to resolve my objection. What about the folks who kinda liked it the way it was?

I think it should be possible for any AC Rep to ask for a second-round charter review in those circumstances. Or maybe the team should do it automatically; any review that is substantially modified as a result of objection must be re-submitted for approval.  Ugh (in some respects, mostly the delay).

> -- 
> 𝄞   L. David Baron                  𝄂
> 𝄢   Mozilla                   𝄂
>             Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
>             What I was walling in or walling out,
>             And to whom I was like to give offense.
>               - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Thursday, 19 March 2015 20:37:26 UTC