Re: Agenda Process Task Force Telcon on 30 September

On 9/25/2014 8:48 AM, wrote:
> 25.09.2014, 14:08, "Stephen Zilles" <>:
>>>   -----Original Message-----
>>>   From: Daniel Glazman []
>>>   Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:23 PM
>>>   To:
>>>   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?
>>>   <>
>>>>>   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 [...] 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.
> I think everyone else is saying "remove it from the process" (I certainly am). My concrete proposal is a statement in chartering that "groups can set additional participation requirements so long as they are applied fairly and transparently", to replace everything the process currently says about good/bad standing.

I don't understand this substitute proposal.

Do you mean:

1. A charter might say that "the group may set up additional 
participation reqts as long as they are fair and transparent"?  I would 
not support that.  Who would be the judge of them being fair and 

2. In our guidelines for writing charters we say "the Director might 
include additional participation requirements".  I think I would be OK 
with that.

3. Something else?

> As well as the various reasons already introduced, there has  been a shift toward asynchronous participation in charters over the last few years, and many people have supported it. So the procedure as written in the Process is not required to be fair or transparent, largely irrelevant to the way most groups work, and when used leads to a number of problems.
> If groups put something like it in a charter and the AC approves the charter, well and good. But we shouldn't tell them what they can and can't ask to have approved.
> cheers
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> - - - Find more at

Received on Sunday, 28 September 2014 02:58:54 UTC