Multiple possible outcomes of a successful AC Appeal

[frivoal]

If an AC Appeal goes through and successfully rejects a decision, the Process says that this happens:

If the number of votes to reject exceeds the number of votes to approve, the decision is overturned. In that case, there are the following possible next steps:

1. The proposal is rejected.
2. The proposal is returned for additional work, after which the applicable decision process is re-initiated.

Who decides between these two possible steps? I suspect that the intended original meaning was the Director / the Team. While that makes sense for proposals that originate with the Team, I don't think it'd be particularly reasonable for the Team to be able to decide whether someone else is allowed or not to try and make an amended proposal.

So I think there should only be one outcome: the decision is overturned, and the Process doesn't decide if it should be submitted again after additional work or not. That should be up to the people who proposed it in the first place. They can give up, or try some more.

If the number of votes to reject exceeds the number of votes to approve, the decision is overturned. After additional work to attempt to address the causes of rejection, those who had initiated the proposal may submit a revised one, following the ordinary applicable process.

[fantasai]

I see the issue, but also, it doesn't make sense to re-submit something that's been soundly rejected for unresolveable reasons, e.g. a Toaster Wattage Standardization Proposal after it's been rejected because we don't standardize toasters, or a PAG proposal after the AC rejected it and decided to rescind the Recommendation instead.

And yes, it's the Team who assesses the outcome of an AC Review. That's fairly explicit in this section already. If the AC doesn't like their assessment, it can Appeal.

[TallTed]

If the number of votes to reject exceeds the number of votes to approve, the decision is overturned. Following such rejection, those who had initiated the proposal may revise it to address the causes of rejection and follow the ordinary applicable process to submit the revised proposal.

[fantasai]

I think we need to make sure that someone can't gum up the system by continuing to submit unacceptable variations of their proposal.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Follow-up to AC rejection of a proposal, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Accept Ted's proposed wording

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Subtopic: Follow-up to AC rejection of a proposal
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/844
<fantasai> florian: After an AC Appeal, if it goes through and rejected, it is either rejected or returned for additional work
<fantasai> ... Team decides
<fantasai> ... if proposal is coming from Team that's fine, but if coming from someone else maybe that's not fine
<fantasai> ... allowing same proposal to be resubmitted wouldn't make sense, but ok to resubmit with changes
<fantasai> ... Note this is about the outcome of an AC Appeal, not normal AC Review
<fantasai> ... Allows to resubmit if addressing the causes of rejection
<fantasai> PROPOSED: Accept Ted's phrasing
<TallTed> +1 :-)
<florian> +1
<cwilso> +1
<fantasai> <fantasai> 0
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Accept Ted's proposed wording