Clarify that AC appeal requests and rationale can be shared with the Membership

[frivoal]

See #603

---

Preview | Diff

[dontcallmedom]

while this is an improvement, I think it doesn't fully cover what would have been helpful in the case I described in #603: I think the Process should state an expectation that unless the appeal request has been shared by the requester in Member-visible space, that the Team will share the request (verbatim?) when starting the appeal request process.

More minutely, rather than "may also share" I think we should encourage it explicitly with a should.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Allow sharing appeal requests with the Membership, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Switch to SHOULD

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Subtopic: Allow sharing appeal requests with the Membership
<fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/676
<fantasai> florian: We discovered last time there was an appeal
<fantasai> ... the person who filed the appeal sent the info to the Team, who had to forward to AC Forum
<fantasai> ... but it was weird because the initiator wasn't able to provide rationale
<fantasai> ... this PR is about clarifying, you can post also to AC Forum
<fantasai> plh: makes sense to me
<fantasai> florian: Dom said we might want to go further, not just say you can but make it more of an expectation
<fantasai> -> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/676#issuecomment-1323340445
<fantasai> florian: If we take his comment, I think that would change MAY to SHOULD?
<plh> ack fan
<fantasai> florian: I'm largely indifferent
<plh> fantasai: the shift is to change the expectation of the default
<plh> ... and make the rpivate exceptional
<plh> florian: most important is to make it's not banned
<fantasai> florian: I think main thing is to clarify that being public isn't banned
<fantasai> plh: I think the Team, we'll have an incentive to them share the appeal
<fantasai> ... probably SHOULD is fine
<fantasai> florian: Agree, shouldn't go to MUST in case want to make it private
<fantasai> plh: Yes, I want to strongly encourage this, if want to make it private should have a very good reason for it
<fantasai> fantasai: I think it would be useful to make it clearer how to make it member-visible
<fantasai> ... right now the Process is very vague, so it's confusing what to do
<TallTed> +0.5 SHOULD, -1 MUST
<fantasai> plh: I would leave that to /Guide, not in the Process. Probably CC ac-forum
<cwilso> +1 should
<fantasai> fantasai: I think I would want the specific method of submitting in an example box
<fantasai> ... because I think it would be likely that someone who wants to use this process would look here rather than /Guide
<fantasai> plh: Unsure about hard-coding AC Forum into the Process
<fantasai> florian: It would be first time referencing AC Forum by name and address
<pal> -1 to harcoding ac-forum or providing an example
<fantasai> ... but if it's in an example, it would be easy to change if necessary
<fantasai> plh: A bit on a slippery slope, gets into operations
<fantasai> fantasai: We do have some links to /Guide in certain places where it's helpful, this is essentially the same idea but it's so short might as well inline it
<fantasai> plh: Florian, can you come up with a reworded PR?
<fantasai> florian: yes
<fantasai> florian: should we resolve on using SHOULD?
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Switch to SHOULD