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

Re: Revising 7.2 Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives (was Re; Agenda Process Document ...)

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 12:21:06 +0200
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <4f1a7866-4839-09bc-0df6-a86effe01c2b@disruptive-innovations.com>
On 20/06/2016 08:43, Stephen Zilles wrote:

> 7.2 Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives
> Process2016; “When Advisory Committee review immediately precedes a
> decision, Advisory Committee representatives may only appeal when there
> is dissent<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent>.”
> REPLACEMENT:"When a W3C decision is made following an Advisory Committee
> review<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACReview> of a
> proposal, Advisory Committee representatives MAY initiate an Advisory
> Committee appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>.
> As noted below, this simplifies the process by removing (an apparently
> unnecessary) constraint: the requirement for “dissent.” The requirement
> for endorsement of an appeal request by 5% of the Membership is already
> a very strong constraint on frivolous appeals. The only major down side
> is the need to wait 3 weeks to see if an appeal attempt is made, but
> many W3C decisions require time to implement anyway.

This 5% threshold has always seemed to me highly underspecified. The
current prose says the Team must send an announcement to the AC and
provide an address for comments, that leads, through that 5% threshold,
to an appeal vote.

1. comments are not approvals or disapprovals and I don't understand
   how you can count 5%. How would you count a "yes but..."?

3. "an address" is not a WBS vote form

In my opinion, the last paragraph of current section 7.2 needs a rather
deep revamp.

Received on Monday, 20 June 2016 10:21:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 20 June 2016 10:21:38 UTC