RE: Agenda Process Task Force Telcon on 30 September

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Glazman [mailto:daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:23 PM
> To: public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Agenda Process Task Force Telcon on 30 September
> 
> On 23/09/2014 21:47, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
> 
> >> 5.      Issue-34: Remove the Good Standing rules from the process
> >> document?
> <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/34>
> >> Beside the recent discussion on the mailing list, when this was
> >> discussed (some time ago) in the AB, It was pointed out that the
> >> terms Bad Standing (Not in Good Standing) was pejorative and led some
> >> organizations (especially User Organizations) to avoid joining a
> >> Working Group because they did not want their participants to be
> >> labelled as being in Bad Standing when their Day Job prevented them
> >> from participating as frequently as desired. Thus, besides removing
> >> Good Standing, if the description is moved to some resource for
> >> Charter Creation, then then a name change for the two categories
> >> should be done. At the risk of starting a Bikeshedding activity and
> >> based on the current effect of Good Standing, I suggest Voting
> >> Participant and Non-voting participant. There may, however, be better
> >> names and this group does not need to define them.
> 
> I think we are far beyond a definition of Voting or non-Voting...
> It seems pretty clear that the terms determining a transition from Voting to
> non-Voting are impossible to apply, in particular where it's needed the most,
> the AB. The proposal is not to bikeshed but to remove Standing from the
> Process ; it is unused and unusable. Call that cleanup.
> 
> </Daniel>
> 
[SZ] I am not saying that Good Standing should not be removed from the Process. What I am saying is that it can be used; it has been effectively used; but that it should be at the option of the Working Group that wants to use it. I have been in Working Groups where it was used and was effective. That means that it is useful to document what it was, but in that process, the names should be changed to have two non-pejorative categories.

Steve Z

Received on Thursday, 25 September 2014 12:08:36 UTC