Re: Possible item for discussion for 2016 -- Charter adjustments

On 2015-05-14 09:04, wrote:
> 14.05.2015, 01:32, "Wayne Carr" <>:
>> On 2015-05-13 12:00, David Singer wrote:
>>>>   On May 13, 2015, at 11:53 , Jeff Jaffe <> wrote:
>>>>   On 5/13/2015 12:54 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>>>>>   On May 13, 2015, at 9:50 , Wendy Seltzer <> wrote:
>>>>>>   On 05/13/2015 12:48 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>>>>>>   At the moment, if one objects to a charter, the team works with you and others who objected, to adjust the charter to resolve your objection, which is great.
>>>>>>>   But then the charter is simply adopted.  Those who voted for the charter as it was, who might have liked it before it was adjusted and maybe
>>>>>>>   don’t like it now, are not consulted.  This could easily be a problem.
> And has been in the last few years, but I think it is a question of practice and suspect we're closing in on reasonable practice.
>>>>   Certainly a candidate topic.  Generally, I'd like to clean up potential problems, but seeing how difficult it is to get a new Process approved I'd rather focus on real problems.  Do we have examples where this has been a real problem?
>>>   There was one a year or two ago where we were surprised and considered raising it, but in the interests of peace and harmony we let it go.
> I don't know what the Process change that would make people think more carefully might look like. I do know what the practice recommendation is, having made it repeatedly.
> Which is why I don't see this as a priority issue for the Process.
>> Rather than increase the time needed for Charter approval in order to
>> allow for possible changes, I think a better approach is to broaden what
>> is appealable.  Than if someone thinks a modification has gone too far,
>> they could appeal and if the needed 5% of the AC agree with the appeal,
>> it goes to a vote that could override the Director's decision.  That
>> makes it so there is extra time needed only when things go wrong.
> There is an open issue on making appeals believable - given the requirement to get an historically high number of signatures in a ridiculously short time, I am unsurprised there hasn't ever been an actual appeal. My own perspective is that it feels like it would almost certainly be a waste of time trying to launch an appeal if I merely thought the decision being appealed was terrible and unsupported by any consensus of the members…

An AC rep has 3 weeks to appeal and an additional week to get 20 AC reps 
agreeing to have a vote.   (A recent AC review had 5% of the AC submit 
reviews in the first 4 days of the review).  If there was something 
wrong or controversial, I don't think it would be hard to get 5% in a 
week -- after possibly 3 weeks of debate about it.

The appeal is a safety valve for when the AC thinks the wrong decision 
was made.  I'm more interested in having that safety valve not be so 
restricted about where it applies.

> I would like to deal with that issue, although hopefully we never need to use the resulting work.
> cheers
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> - - - Find more at

Received on Thursday, 14 May 2015 18:26:28 UTC