Re: Review of the New version, PLEASE READ (this may take some study before the next call)

Regrets for tomorrow. I need to be on an APA call instead.

I've spent today reading through the entire document from start to 
finish. I've submitted PR #90 to correct some minor editorial errors, 
and have opened a handful of issues relating to more significant things 
(none of which need to be dealt with as part of the 2018 update IMO).

Comments inline...

On 07/09/2017 23:49, David Singer wrote:
> #30 Add reference to Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (CEPC) in the Process Document
>    — now says "Participants in W3C activity must abide by the terms and spirit of the W3C Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct [PUB38]”
>      (should it say “any” W3C activity?)
Yes, I think it should.

[...]


> 
> #23 Director can dismis a AB or TAG participant without giving a cause?
>    — the list of reasons an AB/TAG seat is vacant are there. But this request:
>       Add in 3.1 before 3.1.1:
> 
> The Director may remove for cause a participant in any group (including the AB and TAG), where cause includes violating conditions of this process, the membership agreement, or applicable laws.
> 
>      became
> 
> Participants in W3C activity must abide by the terms and spirit of the W3C Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct [PUB38] and the participation requirements described insection 6 of the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33].
> 
> The Director may suspend or remove a participant from any W3C Group (including the AB and TAG) or activity for failure to meet these requirements.
> 
> 
>      which to my eye doesn’t explicitly say that the Director can dismiss for cause, and doesn’t explicitly say that the process, membership agreement, or legal violations are included.

I think it needs to be absolutely explicit. Not the sort of thing we 
want any room for uncertainty on.

[...]

> #34 Process2014 introduced an AC ballot for CR transitions and now we have a ballot open for a year

Have commented on the issue. If my understanding of Dave's most recent 
proposal is correct, that WFM.


Beyond this, I think we're in good shape.


-- 
@LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe tink.uk carpe diem

Received on Monday, 11 September 2017 16:19:18 UTC