Re: Please Open ISSUE-34 (good standing)

On Sep 16, 2014, at 15:48 , Daniel Glazman <> wrote:

> On 16/09/2014 16:40, David (Standards) Singer wrote:
>> Due process. Decisions are made with equity and fairness among participants.
> And I trust the Chairs to do the right thing, fairly.

I do too, but I think we have to say it’s required. See below.

> Again, if Chairs
> are unable to make a difference between a member with high travel budget
> and a member with low travel budget, a member outside of main WG time
> zones and another in main time zones, this is something I cannot live
> with and I'll object to it.
> And if Chairs make mistakes there, they still can be revoked.

Saying that fairness is required gives people the tool they need to appeal unfairness.

On Sep 16, 2014, at 16:19 , GALINDO Virginie <> wrote:

> Daniel,
> Last time I tried to make some 'good standing' sanity check (based mainly on attendance/contribution), I was blocked at STEP 1 on the basis that (1) people not participating do not cause any harm, (2) if you loose poeple, you lose their IP commitment.

yes, there is a reason not to trim membership.  do passengers cause any active harm?  I think that is ‘rare’, and hence the ability to apply filtering only when needed (‘this decision requires good standing’)

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2014 15:27:37 UTC