Time limits on AC Appeal process

https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#ACAppeal describes a process for an AC member to appeal a decision. This is similar to the formal objection process, except that it can force an AC vote.

The time limits in place on that process are pretty unreasonable. It's hard to imagine why anyone would choose that process over the formal objection process.

1. The appeal needs to be filed within three weeks of the decision in question. Note that formal objections have no such statute of limitations clause.
2. The Team needs to announce the appeal within one week. This is reasonable, but it's worth including.
3. The appellant needs to gather support for their appeal from 5% of the AC in one week. Note that this isn't a vote on the appeal, just a process to ensure that a vote isn't initiated frivolously. This period is absurdly short. 5% is a pretty high threshold to reach in a week.
4. The AC then votes on the motion. No time limit is specified, but we might assume that the Team would do something sensible.

To make this more concrete, if there is a bad decision that warrants appeal, an appellant needs to identify the problem, make the decision to act, muster 18 other members to support their decision, and do that within four weeks. That sounds like a lot of time, but there are many cases where a decision isn't even noticed for some time.

This might seem rash, but I would propose that the AC appeal process be removed entirely. The formal objection process is just easier to use overall and it would work for most things.

There are discussions of things that would rely on this process, in particular the removal of AB and TAG members, which would not be able to use the formal objection process. I propose that those be resolved by a simpler process. For that, I would personally prefer that any decision be open to reconsideration via a vote if some small, fixed number of members (five, say) opened the question. That should be enough to defend against frivolous use of the process.

That three week period does serve a purpose: it ensures that a whole chain of decisions that the consortium makes cannot be unwound. The council in the FO process can be expected to handle that sort of complexity. As long as there is adequate time to explore the consequences of overturning a decision, I don't see the AC as being especially prone to making that sort of bad decisions

Even if this doesn't take the suggestion, the three week and one week pre-vote periods should be extended. I'd also be OK with the five member petition idea I suggested above.

Start with the AC Appeal section at https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#ACAppeal and compare it with the formal objection process. Review the alternatives raised in the issue, including removing the process, extending its deadlines, or using a five-member petition. Done means a decided policy change is reflected consistently in the Process Document.