- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:50:46 +0200
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
On 18/09/2014 16:00, Jeff Jaffe wrote: > It would be extremely awkward for the AB Chair to declare an AB Member > to be not in good standing. The AB is unique in that all of its Members > are elected by the AC, so a bad standing declaration could be viewed as > a coup against the AC election. Moreover, there are other means to > remove non-functioning AB Members not available to other Groups - namely > that they get voted out at the next opportunity. I suspected that but, w/o direct knowledge of the way AB handles Standing, I suggested to preserve it for AB. I see now that the issues I highlighted for WGs are also valid for AB. Probably for TAG too then. And even if you could declare an AB seat in bad standing, the AC of the same Member could still vote anyway. We should then get rid of Standing entirely. It's unused and unusable. And since you say an AB member can remain silent/inactive and then the membership will draw conclusions at next election, I don't think there should be a difference in WGs. A member can choose to join a WG and remain totally inactive there. I am then removing my proposal to introduce membership reviews in charters. Let's be pragmatic. </Daniel>
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2014 14:51:15 UTC