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: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 08:48:35 +0200
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <864a9d4b-cf5f-dcb6-711f-95e0dcf06b29@disruptive-innovations.com>
On 21/06/2016 07:59, Stephen Zilles wrote:

> I would suggest the following:
> "Within one week, the Team MUST announce the appeal to the Advisory Committee and provide place for the Advisory Committee representatives to respond with (1) a statement of support (yes, no or abstain) and (2) comments, as desired. The archive of these responses MUST be Member-visible."
> I believe that this clarifies the requirements for responding without either defining what mechanism is to be used to seek the responses nor over-specifying what the Team must do. In particular it would allow a WBS to be used as long as it had a comment field.

That is a perfectly viable compromise, addressing my concern. Thank
you, Steve.

> One interesting sub-issue has to do with the announcement of the appeal. Should that use (or at least include) the text that that appellant provided to with his appeal request? I think it should certainly include the appellant's text, but may also have information provided by the Team.

Excellent question, indeed. As I said, that prose was rather
severely underspecified.

Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2016 06:49:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 21 June 2016 06:49:02 UTC