RE: New Draft

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Chaals McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru]



> removes the statement about appealing decisions that aren't described by the

> process - because if there are enough AC members to start an appeal calling for

> a discussion, it seems unlikely the discussion would not happen



The statement that was removed was in put in to resolve Process Issue-166<https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/166> which says:

Recently (last December) a policy for relicensing unfinished specifications was promulgated by the Director:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2014OctDec/0049.html


This policy has a provision for appealing a decision to relicense or to not relicense.

"Appeal

If the Director decides not to relicense, the Advisory Committee may appeal the decision. If the Director decides to relicense, the Advisory Committee may appeal the decision only if there was a Formal Objection. In both cases, W3C follows the AC appeal process."

This policy is not, however, part of the Process Document, but is part of W3C Policies.

How should the existence of this appeal process be shown in the Process Document?



This was discussed in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/0114.html.




Since not all appealable descisions are described in the process, the (eliminated) sentence is necessary to indicate this fact and to rrequire that such decisions that are outside the process are so identified where they are specified.



Note, we have separately agreed that the Process Document will not have a list of all decisions that are appealable, but will, instead, have a statement with each decision indicating if it is appealable and which type of appeal can be initiated: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Jul/0027.html




Please restore the removed text because, contrary to assertions made on a non-public list, this topic has been previously discussed and needs resolution.



Steve Z