- From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 09:26:38 -0700
- To: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <57335D3E.5030300@linux.intel.com>
In the W3C Process section 6.4 on the Candidate Recommendation stage, it says: "If there was any dissent <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#def-Dissent> to the Working Group decision to request advancement Advisory Committee <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#AC> representatives /may/ appeal <https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#ACAppeal> the decision to advance the technical report." https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#candidate-rec That sentence appears after the usual paragraph on possible next steps (publish another revised CR or move to PR, etc.). Appearing after next steps section makes it unclear what request for advancement is subject to appeal. If it is only about the advancement to CR, not the request for advancement in a next step after that, it should move above that next steps section. (generally it is clearer if next steps is last like it is for FPWD). Also, the link to appeal in the text is to AC appeal, so this is an appeal of the Director's decision to advance. It isn't an appeal of the WG decision to ask to advance, so it should say "the Director's decision" rather than "the Decision". I thought we could clean up that wording as part of the effort to fix up AC appeals.
Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2016 16:27:12 UTC