Re: cleaning up appeals

seems reasonable

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:26 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> 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 Wednesday, 25 May 2016 17:22:18 UTC