RE: Agenda Process Task Force Telcon on 30 September

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Jaffe []
> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 7:58 PM
> To:; Stephen Zilles; Daniel Glazman; public-
> Subject: 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 [mailto:daniel.glazman@disruptive-
> >>>   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 transparent?
> 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?
[SZ] Note that section 6.2.6 of the current Process Document already says,
"A charter MAY include additional voting procedures, but those procedures MUST NOT conflict with the voting requirements of the Process Document.

A charter MAY include provisions other than those required by this document. The charter SHOULD highlight whether additional provisions impose constraints beyond those of the W3C Process Document (e.g., limits on the number of individuals in a Working Group who represent the same Member organization or group of related Members)."

Since the Director must approve all charters, I think your requirements are met.
Steve Z
> >
> > 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 Monday, 29 September 2014 06:01:43 UTC