Revising Appeals of Directors Decisions other than following an AC Review, Part 2 of 2

The following changes are the second part of a (two part) set of changes to finish a revision of the W3C Appeals Process to address comments received and accepted in the Review of Process 2015.
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Jul/0020.html
These are the changes that involve appeals other than to Director's decisions following an AC Review.

The change lists is structured as follows: The section in which the original paragraph exists is identified. The original paragraph is reproduced, followed by the Replacement Paragraph. Some sections may have changes to more than one paragraph. The other text in the section (if any) is omitted. The links are to Process 2015.
1 Introduction
Process 2015 Text:
The Process Document promotes the goals of quality and fairness in technical decisions by encouraging consensus<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#Consensus>, requiring reviews (by both Members and public) as part of the technical report development process<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#Reports>, and through an appeal process<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> for the Advisory Committee.

REPLACEMENT: "The Process Document promotes the goals of quality and fairness in technical decisions by encouraging consensus, requiring reviews (by both Members and public) as part of the technical report development process, and through an Advisory Committee Appeal process<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>."

2.1 Members

Process 2015 Text:
Advisory Committee representatives have appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> powers for some processes described in this document.

REPLACEMENT: "Advisory Committee representatives MAY initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> for some of the processes describe in this document."

2.2 The W3C Team

Process 2015 Text:
The Director is the lead technical architect at W3C. His responsibilities are identified throughout this document in relevant places Some key ones include: ... "tie-breaker" for appeal of a Working Group decision<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#WGAppeals>, ...

REPLACEMENT: "The Director is the lead technical architect at W3C. His responsibilities are identified throughout this document in relevant places Some key ones include: ... "tie-breaker" for a Group Decision Appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#WGAppeals>."

2.3 Advisory Board (AB)

Process 2015 Text:
The Advisory Board hears appeals of Member Submission requests<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo> that are rejected for reasons unrelated to Web architecture; see also the TAG<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#TAG>.

REPLACEMENT: "The Advisory Board hears a Submission Appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo> when a Member Submission is rejected for reasons unrelated to Web architecture; see also the TAG<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#TAG>."

2.4 Technical Architecture Group (TAG)

Process 2015 Text:
The TAG hears appeals of Member Submission requests<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo> that are rejected for reasons related to Web architecture; see also the Advisory Board<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AB>.

REPLACEMENT: "The TAG hears a Submission Appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo> when a Member Submission is rejected for reasons related to Web architecture; see also the Advisory Board<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AB>."

Process 2015 Text:
For some TAG discussions (e.g., an appeal of a rejected Member Submission request<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo>), the TAG may use a list that will be Member-only<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#Member-only>.

REPLACEMENT: "For some TAG discussions (e.g., a Submission Appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo>), the TAG MAY use a list that will be Member-only<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#Member-only>."

Process 2015 Text: 3.5 Appeal of a Chair's Decision

REPLACEMENT: "3.5 Appeal of Group Decisions"

In this Section, Process 2015 Text:
When group participants believe that their concerns are not being duly considered by the group, they may ask the Director<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Director> (for representatives of a Member organization, via their Advisory Committee representative) to confirm or deny the decision. The participants should also make their requests known to the Team Contact<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#TeamContact>. The Team Contact must inform the Director when a group participant has raised concerns about due process.

REPLACEMENT: "When group participants believe that their concerns are not being duly considered by the group, they MAY ask the Director<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Director> (for representatives of a Member organization, via their Advisory Committee representative) to confirm or deny the decision. This is called a <term>Group Decision Appeal<term>. The participants SHOULD also make their requests known to the Team Contact<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#TeamContact>. The Team Contact MUST inform the Director when a group participant has raised concerns about due process."

5.2.4 Call for Participation in a Working Group or Interest Group

Process 2015 Text:
Advisory Committee representatives may appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> creation or substantive modification of a Working Group or Interest Group charter.

REPLACEMENT: "Advisory Committee representatives MAY initiate an Advisory Committee appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> to the W3C Decision to create or substantively modify a Working Group or Interest Group charter."

5.2.5 Working Group and Interest Group Charter Extension

Process 2015 Text:
Advisory Committee representatives may appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> the extension of a Working Group or Interest Group charter.

REPLACEMENT: "Advisory Committee representatives MAY initiate an Advisory Committee appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> to the Director's Decision to extend the charter of a Working Group or Interest Group."

5.2.8 Working Group and Interest Group Closure

Process 2015 Text:
The Director, subject to appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> by Advisory Committee representatives, may close a group prior to the date specified in the charter in any of the following circumstances:

REPLACEMENT: "The Director, subject to an Advisory Committee appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> initiated by Advisory Committee representatives, MAY decide to close ..."

7 Advisory Committee Reviews, Appeals, and Votes
Process 2015 Text:
This section describes how the Advisory Committee reviews proposals from the Director and how Advisory Committee representatives appeal W3C decisions and decisions by the Director. A W3C decision is one where the Director (or the Director's delegate) has exercised the role of assessing consensus after an Advisory Committee review<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACReview> of an Charter Proposal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#CharterReview>, after a Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#cfr>, after a Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#cfr-edited>, after a Proposal to Rescind a W3C Recommendation<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#proposed-rescinded-rec>, and after a Proposed Process Document<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#GAProcess> review.

REPLACEMENT: "This section describes how the Advisory Committee reviews proposals from the Director and how Advisory Committee representatives initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal of a W3C decision or a Director's decision. A W3C decision is one where the Director (or the Director's delegate) has exercised the role of assessing consensus after an Advisory Committee review<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACReview>."

[the remaining portion of the above paragraph, the list of "proposals" is eliminated as redundant. For this to work, however, it will be necessary for all the sections that involve making a W3C Decision to be updated to state that explicitly. Section 6.6 W3C Recommendation already says, "The decision to advance a document to Recommendation is a W3C Decision<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-w3c-decision>."]

7.2 Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives

Process 2015 Text:
These decisions are:

  *   Publication of a Recommendation<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#rec-publication> or Publication of a Rescinded Recommendation<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#proposed-rescinded-rec>,
  *   Working or Interest Group creation<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#cfp>, substantive modification<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#CharterReview> or extension<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#charter-extension>,
  *   Changes to the W3C process<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#GAProcess>.
REPLACEMENT: "These W3C decisions are identified in the sections that explain the requirements for the decisions and include decisions related to group creation and modification, certain maturity levels for Recommendation Track documents and the Process document.
Process 2015 Text:
Advisory Committee representatives may always appeal the following decisions:

  *   Working or Interest Group extension<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#charter-extension> or closure<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#GeneralTermination>,
  *   Call for Implementations<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#candidate-rec>, Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#cfr>, Call for Review of an Edited Recommendation<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#cfr-edited>, or Proposal to Rescind a Recommendation<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#proposed-rescinded-rec>
  *   the Director's intention to sign a Memorandum of Understanding<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#mou> with another organization.
REPLACEMENT: "Advisory Committee representatives MAY also initiate an appeal for certain Director's decisions that do not involve an Advisory Committee review. These, too, are identified in the sections which describe the requirements for the Director's decision and include additional (non-reviewed) maturity levels of Recommendation Track documents, group charter extensions and closures, and Memorandums of Understanding. Director's decisions on issues not described in this Process Document MAY also be appealed if the type of appeal is identified where that Director's decision is described."
Process 2015 Text:
An Advisory Committee representative initiates an appeal by sending a request to the Team (explained in detail in the New Member Orientation<http://www.w3.org/Member/Intro>). The Team must announce the appeal process to the Advisory Committee and provide an address for comments from Advisory Committee representatives. The archive of these comments must be Member-visible. If, within one week of the Team's announcement, 5% or more of the Advisory Committee support the appeal request, the Team must organize an appeal vote asking the Advisory Committee to approve or reject the decision.

REPLACEMENT: "An Advisory Committee representative initiates an appeal by sending a request to the Team. Within one week, the Team MUST announce the appeal to the Advisory Committee and provide place for the Advisory Committee representatives to respond with (1) a statement of support (yes, no or abstain) and (2) comments, as desired. The archive of these responses MUST be Member-visible. If, within one week of the Team's announcement, 5% or more of the Advisory Committee support the appeal request, the Team MUST organize an appeal vote with a four week balloting period asking the Advisory Committee to approve or reject the decision. A majority of the votes received decides the appeal."

7.3 Advisory Committee Votes

Process 2015 Text:
The Advisory Committee votes in elections for seats on the TAG or Advisory Board<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AB-TAG-elections>, and in the event of a formal appeal of a W3C decision<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-w3c-decision>.

REPLACEMENT: "The Advisory Committee votes in elections for seats on the TAG or Advisory Board<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AB-TAG-elections> and in the event of an Advisory Committee appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> achieving the required support to trigger an appeal vote."

9 Liaisons
Process 2015 Text:
The W3C Director may negotiate and sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with another organization. Before signing the MoU, the Team must inform the Advisory Committee of the intent to sign and make the MoU available for Advisory Committee review; the Advisory Committee may appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>.

REPLACEMENT: "The W3C Director MAY negotiate and sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with another organization. Before signing the MoU, the Team MUST inform the Advisory Committee of the intent to sign and make the MoU available to the Advisory Committee; Advisory Committee representatives MAY initiate an Advisory Committee appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal> to the decision to sign the MoU.

10 Member Submission Process
Process 2015 text:

  *   If rejected<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo>, the Submitter(s) may appeal to either the TAG<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#TAG> or the Advisory Board<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AB>.
REPLACEMENT: "*     If rejected<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo>, the Submitter(s) MAY initiate a Submission Appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo> of the Team's decision to either the TAG<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#TAG> or the Advisory Board<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AB>."
Process 2015 text:10.4 Rejection of a Submission Request
REPLACEMENT: "10.4 Rejection of a Submission Request and Submission Appeals
Process 2015 text:The Advisory Committee representative(s) of the Submitters(s) may appeal the rejection to the TAG<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#TAG> if the reasons are related to Web architecture, or to the Advisory Board<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AB> if the request is rejected for other reasons. In this case the Team should make available its rationale for the rejection to the appropriate body. The Team will establish a process for such appeals that ensures the appropriate level of confidentiality<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#confidentiality-levels>.
Replacement: The Advisory Committee representative(s) of the Submitters(s) may initiate a Submission Appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#SubmissionNo> of the Team's decision to the TAG<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#TAG> if the reasons are related to Web architecture, or to the Advisory Board<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AB> if the request is rejected for other reasons. In this case the Team should make available its rationale for the rejection to the appropriate body. The Team will establish a process for such appeals that ensures the appropriate level of confidentiality<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#confidentiality-levels>.
=======End of Proposed Changes in Part 2========
The above changes were designed to implement the following principles:

A.     The three types appeals in the W3C Process are:

i.                 Group Decision Appeal

ii.                Submission Appeal

iii.               Advisory Committee Appeal

B.     Which of the three types of appeal is to be used MUST be explicitly identified.

C.      Who can initiate the appeal MUST be identified (whether it is an individual or an AC Representative)

D.     What is being appealed -- what "decision" and who (chair, Director, W3C or Team) made it --MUST be identified.

E.      Note: Formal Objections are not strictly an "appeal". They are "registered" not "initiated" and they follow the document to which they apply. A separate step, the Group Decision Appeal that asks the Director to "confirm or deny a decision" (of the group) is the appeal mechanism. Any individual may register a Formal Objection, but only group participants may issue a Group Decision Appeal and if they belong to a Member organization then they must do so through their AC Representative.

F.      There should be a specification of what DOCUMENTATION should accompany each type of appeal. This is specified for a Group Decision Appeal.