Proposal for 7.2 Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives - corrected

correction to the proposed text

[[


      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 any of the 
following Director decisions: 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; a rejection of a request to advance to any 
Recommendation track maturity level that has an associated AC Review; or 
a rejection of a Member request to propose a new Charter to AC 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.

]]


On 2016-06-10 10:01, wayne carr wrote:
>
> +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.w
>>