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

On 2016-06-10 12:08, David Singer wrote:
> 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.

I think it isn't worth having extra text to disallow things that 
wouldn't happen.  For instance, AC loves it, Director loves it, and some 
AC rep wants to try for a week to gather the 5%.

if someone wants to be a troublemaker then they can disagree with the 
rest of the world and then ask for an appeal and fail.

>
> 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…."

I think it should specifically say Decisions after AC Reviews and that 
list (corrected in a second email - I'd left one out).  These are all 
really big things.  I don't think we want to appeal the day to day, more 
minor administrative decisions.

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

This is the current process text: "Team/must/organize an appeal vote 
asking the Advisory Committee to approve or reject the decision."

That doesn't say anything about providing additional advice.  It's 
approving or overturning the decision.

The Advisory Committee doesn't just provide "advice".  The Process says 
"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 <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#ACReview> ".

That doesn't say the Director listens to AC advice and can then decide 
whatever they choose.  It's assessing the consensus found in the 
review.  If the AC disagrees with that estimation of consensus, they can 
appeal and that can lead to a vote that determines the decision.  That's 
what I think the Process says about AC appeals.


>
>> On Jun 10, 2016, at 10:01 , wayne carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com 
>> <mailto: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 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 at15:00-16:00 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
>>>     Archivesinternal-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
>>>
>>
>>
>
> Dave Singer
>
> singer@mac.com <mailto:singer@mac.com>
>