Re: Please Open ISSUE-34 (good standing)

On Sep 16, 2014, at 15:26 , Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:

> On 16/09/2014 16:13, David (Standards) Singer wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Well, this is how it goes _right now_ in the Process, and that prose
> is ages old. Never raised any reaction. Excerpt from 6.2.1.7:
> 
>  When the Chair and the Team Contact agree, the Chair MAY declare that
>  a participant is no longer in Good Standing
> 
> The rest of the prose of that section also shows that it's a Chairs'
> decision to initiate a Standing review process for a given member.

I still think that if the chair announces that an upcoming decision will be subject to Good Standing, and that Bob is not in good standing having {insert favorite reason, e.g. missed the last N meetings}, and someone points out that Alice fails the same favorite reason, the chair should not say I dont care, because {insert favorite counter-reason here}, but also declare Alice not in good standing.

Please see OpenStand principle #1 "Due process. Decisions are made with equity and fairness among participants.   <http://open-stand.org/about-us/principles/>


David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2014 14:41:14 UTC