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



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel Glazman [mailto:daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com]
>Sent: Monday, 20 June, 2016 13:45
>To: public-w3process@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Revising 7.2 Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives
>(was Re; Agenda Process Document ...)
>
>On 20/06/2016 21:54, Carr, Wayne wrote:
>
>> We don't need to put in the Process document exactly how the Team gets
>>the information from the AC.  They can use a mail list, or an online form, or
>>however they tell the AC how to indicate they support the request to have
>>an AC vote on the appeal.  We don't need to have that level of detail in the
>>Process document.
>
>Wow. We're discussing an Appeal process and you think such a lose way of
>doing things would not attract, with a precise 5% threshold, a deep and fine
>review? I am thinking exactly the contrary, we're dealing here with one of
>our worst possible scenarios and we have to fence it off _very_ precisely to
>avoid any contestation.

I don't understand what you mean in that paragraph.  I suspect we may be talking about two entirely different things.

Here is the timeline:
A. Director Decision (say to extend a WG Charter)
B. One AC rep initiates an AC appeal
C. W3C Team determines if 5% of the AC agrees that the AC should vote on the Director Decision.
D. if it reaches the 5% of the AC threashhold, the Team conducts an AC vote on whether to accept or reject the Director Decision.

As I understand it, you are concerned about step C.  You want it to be precisely specified how the Team determines if 5% of the AC wants the AC to vote on whether to accept or reject the Directors Decision.  

Step C is not the AC vote on the Director's decision.  It is whether at least 5% of the AC agree that there should be an AC vote on the Director's decision.

I think the Team should be free to figure out how to find out if 5% agree to having the vote - that it doesn't matter if they use an online form or an email address.

>
></Daniel>
>

Received on Monday, 20 June 2016 21:43:34 UTC