Re: Please Open ISSUE-34 (good standing)

On Sep 16, 2014, at 16:28 , Daniel Glazman <> wrote:

> On 16/09/2014 17:19, 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.
>> I believe that, as chair, we need to have a fair and representative participants list, and I support the rationale of your suggestion.
> Virgine, if you lose PEOPLE, you don't lose IP commitment. IP commitment
> is made by Members, and the Members who make IP commitment usually care
> about their participation and will reply with a commitment to increased
> participation, or have more than one rep in the WG and one less is not
> an issue at all…

Yes, and maybe the value of an IP commitment from passengers may be not so high (are they ‘active in the field’?).  But it has some value.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2014 15:47:42 UTC