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 2015-03-19 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.

It should be:

[[

When Advisory Committee review immediately precedes a decision, Advisory 
Committee representatives MAY appeal the following decisions, with the 
exception that appeal is not permitted when the Director approves the 
proposal without substantive change and there was no dissent 
<http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#def-Dissent>. These decisions are:

  * Publication of a Recommendation
    <http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#rec-publication> or
    Publication of a Rescinded Recommendation
    <http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#proposed-rescinded-rec>,
  * Working or Interest Group creation
    <http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#cfp> or extension
    <http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#charter-extension>,
  * Relicensing Unfinished Specifications,
    <http://www.w3.org/2014/10/relicense.html>
  * Changes to the W3C process
    <http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#GAProcess>.

]]

There's an even clearer variant of your example where there's no 
question it can't be appealed now, but should be.

Change your example so there are no formal objections in the Charter 
Review, but there are AC review requests for changes (something very 
common).  The Director makes a requested change.  Now the approval is of 
something the AC didn't know they were approving and possibly would have 
formally objected to, but didn't have the opportunity. Under the current 
Process wording, there can't be an appeal of a Charter Review if there 
were no formal objections.  (it says dissent and dissent is defined as 
at least one formal objection)

The proposed wording above handles that.

It seems like a partial workaround now is that if any AC Review suggests 
anything another AC rep doesn't like, they can formally object to 
something random just to make an appeal possible if there is some 
substantive change they don't like - or a rejection based on a complaint 
that wasn't a formal objection.  I strongly support and formally object 
may become a real thing.

Better would be to correct the wording, and it it gets rejected during 
the approval process, it just gets removed.

>
> 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).

I don't remember ever being asked if I want to change my AC review based 
on changes made to the proposal.

>
> -David
>