Re: Agenda Process Task Force Telcon on 30 September

On Sep 30, 2014, at 4:41 , wrote:

> 30.09.2014, 02:48, "Jeff Jaffe" <>:
>> On 9/29/2014 2:01 AM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>>>  [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.
>> Given the second sentence (MAY include other provisions) allows
>> additional provisions, it seems that your proposal (allowing additional
>> participation requirements) is entirely unnecessary since that is
>> nothing more than an additional provision.
> So we appear to be in violent agreement that there is nothing necessary to leave, if we decide to remove the section on Good Standing, since the only thing we want to retain is already elsewhere in the document.
> Which reduces the question to "does anyone think we should not remove the section on good standing”?

I am fine with removal. But...

I think the only questions remaining are 

a) do we need Good Standing for formal committees such as the TAG and AB?
b) do we have the energy to re-define good standing so it can be implemented in a simple, clear fashion with automated support?
c) if a group wanted to adopt Good Standing, is there a place other than the process document in which we can place this ‘optional tool’ (I suspect that it may be only the TAG and AB, even if we revise it)
e) do the chairs need a suggestion for a formal tool that they can use to make sure that only ‘informed people’ get to influence ‘critical decisions’ (I think this is part of the intent of Good Standing, but not its effect).

My answers
a) maybe. since TAG and AB are elected, we need some way to determine effective resignation, but that’s not Good Standing.
b) no
c) not material, since the current definition is unusable and the answer to (b) was no
d) there is no (d)
e) maybe, but it’s a rathole down into which I suggest we not venture

> cheers
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> - - - Find more at

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2014 22:12:16 UTC