Re: Please Open ISSUE-34 (good standing)

On 16/09/2014 16:13, David (Standards) Singer wrote:

> I agree that it has problems, thatís why I want to make it an available tool rather than an automatic one 

Then I suggest to move, for normal WGs (ie not the TAG nor AB), the
Standing provisions from Process to Charters. I am quite sure this
will mean the extinction of Standing in the near-term future.

If people think we still need a mechanism to make sure members are
really participating, I am willing to take an action item to write a
recommended "Membership review" section for WG Charters, with the
following goals that seem to me the only way to make Standing work
correctly. I am not willing to work on Standing, I maintain my
opinion we should get rid of it.

  - this is not about Standing any more but about WG membership
  - Chairs can initiate a "cleanup" process of their WG's membership
    to remove "inactive" individual members from their list of
    official members
  - this is done in four steps, based on list+call+ftfs attendance and
    conformance to W3C Process and WG rules.
    this is an per-member process, not automatic, at chair's discretion
    also based on WG context

  STEP 1: Chairs notify Team Contact that a given individual is not
    participating, attendance reports/details provided, or not observing
    rules, details provided. Team has one week to object. No reply or
    OK reply move process to step 2
  STEP 2: Chairs notify AC-Rep and individual that his/her attendance
    level is below limits and that w/o commitment to increase
    attendance sent within a week, individual will be removed from
    WG membership. No reply moves to step 3.
  STEP 3: Chairs notify AC-Rep, individual and Team that he/she is
    removed from WG. Team Contact performs the removal.

  STEP 4: a given individual may hit step 2 only twice in a Charter's
    life. A third hit implies automatic removal.

The current provisions for bad standing's handling in votes or polls
seem to me impossible to apply because of "one individual's attendance
works for all reps of same Member" and since we don't have the tools to
monitor that so finely anyway. Let's get rid of them then.

Example of possible notification by Chairs to Team Contact:

  Chairs have decided to initiate a membership review of individual
  XXXXX, representative of Member YYYY. He is not contributing at all
  to mailing-list, attended only three weekly conference calls in the
  last 12 months and none in the last 6 months, and never attended a
  FTF despite lack of time zone issues. W/o objection from Team in the
  next 7 days, Chairs will notify individual and his AC-Rep his
  contributions are below limits. W/o commitment to an increased
  participation within a week after that notification, individual will
  be removed from WG's membership.

That seems to me _potentially_ useful. Standing as we understood
it 15 years ago seems to me old, unused and impossible to
use. Don't misunderstand me, this is not about throwing some
people away, this is about cleanup. Some Members never perform
such a cleanup in their reps-list, even when a rep leaves the
company... Our WG membership stats are then far from reality, and
we all try to evaluate our number of active contributors vs. our
number of contributors. But from time to time, yes, we may have
to expell someone. And again, I trust Chairs to do the right
thing depending on context, with Team's help.

</Daniel>

Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2014 15:04:27 UTC