cleaning up appeals

This is really a separate (minor) change,

We should remove the condition on an appeal that there had to be dissent, which occurs in at least one other place in the process.

(Not that appeals ever happen, mind you.)


> On May 6, 2016, at 8:03 , Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
>> I previously had  "If there was any dissent in Advisory Committee review, the Advisory Committee may appeal the Director’s decision.”, copied from somewhere else in the process. This is wrong.
>> There is a perverse corner case (which I think affects at least one other appeal); what if the AC votes, without dissent, “yes, obsolete it!” and the Director decides “no”? No dissent, no appeal allowed. Strange.  I removed the condition, it now reads "The Advisory Committee may appeal the Director’s decision.”
> 
> I think that's what we should always do.  If everyone says yes and the director says yes, it's pretty unlikely that 5% would agree to appeal - so we don't need to specifically ban that.
> 
> The perverse case can happen if everyone says yes, someone makes a comment that is not a formal objection, and the Director changes what is to be done -- like alters a Charter - and then says yes to that version no one had seen.  That doesn't apply to obsoleting a spec but does to things like Charter approvals.  So, I think we should remove the restrictions on when appeals can happen everywhere.  But, that isn't this topic :)

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Friday, 6 May 2016 17:16:31 UTC