- From: David (Standards) Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 15:40:40 +0100
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
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 don’t 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