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

I agree that we can
a) simplify the appeals text (what Jeff seems to like, process simplifcation) and
b) remove its current rather odd characteristics

The only thing not covered in what you said below, and I tend to agree that it maybe doesn’t need covering, is any “gating” on when one can initiate a request to gather 5% of the AC.  The current process requires “dissent” (in at least some places) which obviously leaves at least the case when the AC didn’t dissent at all and the Director made the opposite decision.

It might seem we could avoid a troublemaker by saying one can only appeal if there is any disagreement either within the AC or between the AC and Director; but I believe that someone causing trouble would have registered a dissenting opinion at the prior vote, and hence this wouldn’t stop anything.

So, in conclusion, given that appeals are unlikely, I think a short sweet text like this is fine.

Maybe we can make it shorter?  “The AC can appeal any decision by the Director” maybe adding "including but not limited to…."

Mind you, the AC is A(dvisory) so a successful appeal merely re-advises the Director…it does not, per se, change the decision.

> On Jun 10, 2016, at 10:01 , wayne carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> 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 within three weeks of the decision.
> 
> 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.
> 
> ]]
> 
> 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 <mailto:jeff@w3.org>] 
>> Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 1:32 PM
>> To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> <mailto:szilles@adobe.com>; public-w3process@w3.org <mailto: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 <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/wiki/AB/2016_Priorities#Voting>
>> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/wiki/Voting2016 <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://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2016_Priorities#Maintenance <https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2016_Priorities#Maintenance>
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2016May/0056.html <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>https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Jul/0027.html <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://www.w3.org/2016/02/15-w3process-minutes.html <https://www.w3.org/2016/02/15-w3process-minutes.html>
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2016May/0003.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2016May/0003.html>
>> 5.      Supergroups 
>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2016_Priorities#Supergroups <https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2016_Priorities#Supergroups>
>> 6.      Any other topics
>>  
>> Steve Zilles
>> Chair, W3C Process Document Task Force
>>  
>>  
> 
> 

Dave Singer

singer@mac.com