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

> On Jun 20, 2016, at 9:54 , Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> I was just writing the same thing that David wrote (although mine was longer and less clear J).  +1
>  
> One more thing needs to be added though.  There needs to be some more formal response from the Director when there is a request to put up a WG Charter for AC Review.  That isn’t really a Director decision now not to submit a Charter for AC Review.  A request can just disappear if the Team just doesn’t do it.  That’s why I was thinking there needs to be something that gets responded to – like doing it with a Member submission.  It could be something like some number of AC reps support some proposed charter (that had been developed) and the Director makes a formal decision whether to send it to AC Review or not.
>  
> Different topic:  Does it need to be 3 weeks for a single AC rep to ask for an appeal?  Why not 10 days?  This is for something the AC would think is really wrong – we don’t need 3 weeks to figure that out J.


Well, the time periods are supposed to give people time to read it, allow for vacations, allow for a little campaigning and explanation, and so on.  I think 3 weeks is about right, for that. Much shorter than that and you run out of time explaining why the sky is about to fall.

(Having said that, making it shorter is OK by me; really, you should have 5% of the AC waiting with their finger on ‘send’ before you even think of starting an appeal.)


>   <>
>  <>From: David Singer [mailto:singer@mac.com] 
> Sent: Monday, 20 June, 2016 08:35
> To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
> Cc: wayne carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>; Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>; public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Revising 7.2 Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives (was Re; Agenda Process Document ...)
>  
> I think we can simplify further.
>  
> 1) I think Wayne pointed out that there are formal decisions in the process that don’t follow an AC vote. Why are they excluded?  Why not simply say that any formal decision of the director, under this process, is subject to appeal?
>  
> 2) If we say that, then we simply delete all the specific places that appeals are mentioned.  We don’t need to wordsmith them.  It’s an unlikely occurrence so doesn’t even need to be mentioned to remind people.
>  
> 3) As Daniel says, the emails to the AC are going to have to say clearly “I support this appeal.”  We need the text to say that 5% of the AC clearly indicate their formal support for the appeal, in their email to the AC.
>  
>  
> On Jun 19, 2016, at 23:43 , Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com <mailto:szilles@adobe.com>> wrote:
>  
> The change to effect the suggestion  to simplify 7.2 below is:
>  
> 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 <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 <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 <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.
>  
> Similar changes (all simpler than those proposed on 13 Jul 2015[1] to deal with issues 164, 165 and 167) must be made in the following sections:
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Jul/0027.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Jul/0027.html>
>  
> 6.4 Candidate Recommendation
>  
> If there was any dissent<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent>> to the Working Group decision to request advancement Advisory Committee<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AC <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AC>> representatives may appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>> the decision to advance the technical report.
>  
> REPLACEMENT: "The Advisory Committee representatives MAY initiate an Advisory Committee appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>> to the W3C Decision to advance the technical report."
> [Clean-up, Issue-164<https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164 <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>>][Revision above]
>  
> 6.6 W3C Recommendation
>  
>   *   If there was any dissent<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent>> in Advisory Committee reviews, the Director must publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C and the general public, and must formally address<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#formal-address <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#formal-address>> the comment at least 14 days before publication as a W3C Recommendation. In this case the Advisory Committee<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AC <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AC>> may appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>> the decision,
>  
> REPLACEMENT: "*     If there was any dissent<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent>> in the Advisory Committee review<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACReview <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACReview>>, the Director MUST publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C and the general public, and MUST formally address<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#formal-address <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#formal-address>> the comment at least 14 days before publication as a W3C Recommendation. 
> ·           The Advisory Committee representatives may initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>> to the W3C Decision."
> [Clean-up, Issue-164<https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164 <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>>] [Rejection with Positive Reviews, Issue-167<https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/167 <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/167>>][Revision above][Note this text differs slightly from David Singers “roll-up” to be consistent across the document.]
>  
> 6.9 Obsoleting or Rescinding a W3C Recommendation [Per David Singer’s “roll-up” on 5/13/2016]
>  
> [prior to David Singer’s suggested changes] If there was any dissent<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent>> in Advisory Committee reviews, the Director must publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C and the public, and must formally address<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#formal-address <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#formal-address>> the comment at least 14 days before publication as a Rescinded Recommendation. In this case the Advisory Committee<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AC <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#AC>> may appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>> the decision.
>  
> REPLACEMENT: "*     If there was any dissent<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent>> in the Advisory Committee review<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACReview <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACReview>>, the Director MUST publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C and the general public, and MUST formally address<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#formal-address <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#formal-address>> the comment at least 14 days before publication as a Retired Recommendation. The Advisory Committee representatives may initiate an Advisory Committee Appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>> to the W3C Decision."
> [Clean-up, Issue-164<https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164 <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>>] [Rejection with Positive Reviews, Issue-167<https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/167 <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/167>>][Revision above]
>  
> 11 Process Evolution
>  
> 1.    After the Advisory Committee review<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACReviewAfter <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACReviewAfter>>, if there is consensus, the Team enacts the new process officially by announcing the W3C decision<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-w3c-decision <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-w3c-decision>> to the Advisory Committee. If there was dissent<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#def-Dissent>>, Advisory Committee representatives may appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>> the decision.
>  
> REPLACEMENT: "... to the Advisory Committee. Advisory Committee representatives MAY initiate an Advisory Committee appeal<http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal <http://www.w3.org/2015/04/Process-20150428/#ACAppeal>> to the W3C.
> [Clean-up, Issue-164<https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164 <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/164>>][Revision above]
>  
>  
> Steve Z
>  
> From: wayne carr [mailto:wayne.carr@linux.intel.com <mailto:wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>] 
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 2:49 PM
> To: David Singer <singer@mac.com <mailto:singer@mac.com>>
> Cc: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com <mailto:szilles@adobe.com>>; Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org <mailto:jeff@w3.org>>; public-w3process@w3.org <mailto:public-w3process@w3.org>
> Subject: 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 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://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>
> 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://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 <mailto:singer@mac.com>
>  
>  
>  
> Dave Singer
> 
> singer@mac.com <mailto:singer@mac.com>
Dave Singer

singer@mac.com