Re: Please Open ISSUE-34 (good standing)

17.09.2014, 23:20, "David (Standards) Singer" <singer@apple.com>:
> On Sep 17, 2014, at 22:08 , chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
>>  16.09.2014, 21:41, "Robin Berjon" <robin@w3.org>:
[...]
>>>  I see where Dave is coming from here, but I don't think that the toolbox
>>>  should be in the Process document. We could easily have a library of
>>>  things that charters (which could also use being shorter and with a lot
>>>  less useless boilerplate) could simply link to.
>>  Yes. In the process document I propose that we have about one line, saying that charters can include requirements on participants. I think it makes sense to state that they must be consistently applied - "what seems fair to the chair" doesn't strike me as quite good enough for open and transparent processes.
>>
>>  But since any such charter still has to get through AC review, I don't suppose we need to guess in advance what rules the AC are likely to think are fair and reasonable, since it is not clear what groups might want.
>
> Right.  But since we may want to document Good Standing at least for TAG and AB, we may as well document it so other charters could (hypothetically, I think it unlikely) simply point and say “we use that”.

I'd personally be pleased to hear that the chairs of the TAG and/or AB are considering Good Standing requirements in their groups. But I don't believe that has been the case for many years.

>  Offering pre-packaged ready-to-eat good-standing-ramen is easier than cooking it yourself.  Exactly which shelf that goes on I care very little.

Indeed. But a handy kitchen shelf seems more reasonable than building one into the load-bearing structure…

cheers

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Thursday, 18 September 2014 10:01:44 UTC