Re: Please Open ISSUE-34 (good standing)

On Sep 16, 2014, at 14:06 , Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:

> On 16/09/2014 14:10, David (Standards) Singer wrote:
> 
>> I think that:
>> 
>> * good standing needs to move from being a normal part of the process, to being a tool available to groups and their chairs; so define it but don’t require it
>> * a group intending to have good standing available as a tool needs to say so in their charter (“may use the good standing process”)
>> * we need to look at other places in the process where it is used (e.g. TAG and AB, formally elected groups)
>> * on the question of chair discretion
>>  — it’s fine for the chair to say “to affect this decision/vote, you need to be in good standing” (e.g. because it really needs people to be up to speed);  but only if participants have the opportunity to get into good standing;  it’s not needed that good standing is used for every decision
>>  — it is not OK for the chair to use discretion about who is affected; it’s either a uniform requirement, or not; you cannot exclude person A for lacking good standing while accepting person B who also lacks it
> 
> The whole "good standing" section 6.2.1.7 in the Process seems
> to me the parangon of administrative blah-blah introduced for
> good reasons but impossible to apply, sorry to say the least.

I agree that it has problems, that’s why I want to make it an available tool rather than an automatic one (as you note later, there are some places we may still need it).  If there is a group that wants to and can apply it, I don’t see any reason not to have it available.  I’d also like to see whether we can re-focus it to better achieve the presumed desired effect (which I take to be that you don’t want poorly-engaged or poorly-informed people gumming up the works and delaying things over material that they would understand if they were up to speed) and easier/automatic to use.

> 1. Chairs have no tools to monitor that. With large Groups, that's
>   just 100% unfeasible, sorry. And this is not only hypothetical;
>   I have tried, during more than 9 months, to monitor good and bad
>   standing. I eventually gave up, that's too complex to handle
>   given the rules of 6.2.1.7.

That’s an issue.  It’s pointless if it can’t be managed.

> Then Dave said above "it is not OK for the chair to use discretion about
> who is affected". I soooo totally disagree.

I am sorry.  There is absolutely no way we can condone the chair playing favorites, no matter how tempting it is.  What you say is too close to that.

> AFAIK, the oldest WG in the Consortium, the CSS WG, has never used
> Standing. Each time we discussed it, it was either impractical or
> impossible. I think we should be able to ditch it _entirely_ except in
> the case of AB and TAG.

Not so far from where I am, which is to improve its definition and measurability, and make it apply to groups only on their choice (and I think the AB and TAG probably should have it chosen for them).

For groups where it won’t work, we probably need better mechanisms to provide back-pressure against the uninformed gumming up the works.

>  I can't
> imagine a reasonable Chair refusing to register a vote or poll for a
> Member in "bad standing" if that Member contributes a technically valid
> and useful point of view…

Indeed, good standing and votes are a long way from technical arguments.  Of course WGs should listen to good arguments at any stage, and if someone not in good standing makes a good point, I would hope the WG and chair listen to it.  (And someone in good standing spouting rubbish won’t carry the day either.)

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2014 14:13:52 UTC