W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > June 2016

Re: Agenda: Process Document TF Telcon on Monday, 13 June, 2016

From: wayne carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 10:01:50 -0700
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <b7da9b84-3cce-4f7b-2803-8ddc9ac6147e@linux.intel.com>
+1 for what Steve wrote.

What is subject to appeals could be (fully) described as:


      7.2 Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives

The Advisory Committee may appeal any Director decision that immediately 
follows an AC Review.  Additionally, the AC may appeal Working or 
Interest Group extensions of closures, the Director's intention to sign 
a Memorandum of Understanding with another organization, a decision on 
whether to advance to Candidate Recommendation, or on whether to propose 
a new Charter to Advisory Committee Review.

In all cases, an appeal/must/be initiated withinthree weeksof the decision.

An Advisory Committee representative initiates an appeal by sending a 
request to the Team (explained in detail in theNew 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, withinone weekof 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.


That is simpler than what it says now.  This means the AC can appeal 
every significant Director decision.

The fact that an appeal has never happened would not be a reason to 
remove all of them.  AC appeals are what makes this an organization 
where the Membership is in control, not the Director (or W3C 
management).  I think from my own experience that the appeals process 
has played an essential role.  The fact that the AC can appeal, makes it 
so it doesn't need to -- it is a fallback so key decisions the 
Membership clearly does not agree with can't happen.

The question here isn't whether that text above is too complex or not -- 
it's what rights should the Membership have.

On 2016-06-09 22:51, Stephen Zilles wrote:
> *From:*Jeff Jaffe [mailto:jeff@w3.org]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 9, 2016 1:32 PM
> *To:* Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>; public-w3process@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Agenda: Process Document TF Telcon on Monday, 13 June, 2016
> On 6/9/2016 12:05 PM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>     The call is on Monday, 13 June, 2016 at 15:00-16:00 UTC
>     <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=W3C+Process+Document+Task+Force+Meeting&iso=20160411T08&p1=224&ah=1>
> Regrets.
>     *Webex Information is on our Mail Archives
>     internal-w3process@w3.org <mailto:internal-w3process@w3.org> (see
>     separate e-mail to this list)*
>     https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/internal-w3process/2016Jun/0000.html
>      (member only accessible)
>     For residents of other (typical) time zones the start times were:
>     Pacific:  8:00
>     Eastern US: 11:00
>     Central Europe: 17:00
>     Japan: 24:00
>     The purpose of these meetings has been to agree on the resolution
>     of open issues, close them where possible or assign actions to
>     move toward closure.
>     Agenda:
>     1.A new method to vote for AB and TAG Members
>     https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2016_Priorities#Voting
>     https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/wiki/Voting2016
>     2.A consideration of whether to include a notion of an Obsolete
>     spec (not to be confused with a rescinded spec)
>     https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2016_Priorities#Maintenance
>     https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2016May/0056.html
>     3.Cleaning up the handling of the Appeals Process in the existing
>     Process Document
>     https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Jul/0027.html
>     Note that item 11 in this message should also be labelled with
>     Issue 167 and that these changes address some of the issues that
>     were raised in the e-mail discussion of item 2 above.
> Since I cannot attend Monday, I will repeat what I have said in the past.
> I appreciate the intellectual thought that is driving use cases that 
> leads to these proposals.
> However, many of these use cases have never happened in practice.  And 
> adding process text for cases that never happen is an anti-pattern for 
> our goal of streamlining the process.
> SZ: to the best of my knowledge no Appeal has ever happened, but that 
> is not a reason to not have clear instructions on what can be appealed 
> and how. Most of the changes in the “Clean-up” are related to issues 
> that were raised in comments during the Review of Process 2015. At 
> that time we agreed to do a Clean-up of the text to make the 
> identification of what is appealable and how to do it more clear. The 
> items that are labeled with Issue-164 or Issue-165 are of that 
> category. Only Issue-167 introduces a new Appeal. The other items are 
> “simplifying the process by making it more clear” and are not adding 
> to the size (in any significant way. In fact, some of the changes 
> shrink the document. Therefore, I believe your comment on it being an 
> “anti-pattern” to be substantially incorrect and not in agreement with 
> commitments made in getting Process2015 approved without resolving all 
> the comments given at that time.
>     4.The existing CG discussion about Member organizations.
>     https://www.w3.org/2016/02/15-w3process-minutes.html
>     https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2016May/0003.html
>     5.Supergroups
>     https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2016_Priorities#Supergroups
>     6.Any other topics
>     Steve Zilles
>     Chair, W3C Process Document Task Force
Received on Friday, 10 June 2016 17:02:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 June 2016 17:02:30 UTC