Group Participation and Good Standing - feedback wanted

I understand lots of folks in the WG are busy and there is naturally a 
bit of a relaxation period after a FPWD to see reviews come in, however, 
I'd like to see the WG kick into gear and start going through the open 
issues. I did notice that there was not as much participation recently - 
I'd like to know why as to encourage more activity.

1) Are people having difficulty following the email threads?
2) Do people only care about certain issues and are happy to ignore the 
rest?
3) Are people happy or not happy about the overall direction the API is 
taking?

I am wondering, given the large amount of members, we could start 
applying "Good standing rules" [1], although exception could be made for 
those who are based in timezones such as Korea and Japan where it is 
unreasonable for a person to wake up to attend the telecons. Note I am 
open to doing separate calls with the W3C for this participants, so I'd 
like to know if those folks (Mountie, Channy, etc.) would like this or 
if they are happy with mailing list participation.


Good Standing Rules are summarized from [1] below - however, I do find 
them somewhat harsh so I'd be happy to relax them. However, not 
attending *any* telecons and not participating over the mailing list at 
all is a bit odd, especially when there is so much work to be done!

    cheers,
       harry
-----

Participation by an individual in a Working Group on an ongoing basis 
implies a serious commitment to the charter, including all of the following:

  * attending most meetings of the Working Group.
  * providing deliverables or drafts of deliverables in a timely fashion.
  * being familiar with the relevant documents of the Working Group,
    including minutes of past meetings.
  * following discussions on relevant mailing list(s).

...

A participant MAY be declared in Bad Standing in any of the following 
circumstances:

  * the individual has missed more than one of the last three
    distributed meeting
  * the individual has missed more than one of the last three
    face-to-face meetings.
  * the individual has not provided deliverables in a timely fashion
    twice in sequence.
  * the individual has not followed the conflict of interest by
    disclosing information to the rest of the group.

Although all participants representing an organization SHOULD attend all 
meetings, attendance by one representative of an organization satisfies 
the meeting attendance requirement for all representatives of the 
organization.

The above criteria MAY be relaxed if the Chair and Team Contact agree 
that doing so will not set back the Working Group. For example, the 
attendance requirement can be relaxed for reasons of expense (e.g., cost 
of travel) or scheduling (for example, an exceptional teleconference is 
scheduled at 3:00 a.m. local time for the participant). It is the 
responsibility of the Chair and Team Contact to apply criteria for Good 
Standing consistently.

When a participant risks losing Good Standing, the Chair and Team 
Contact are expected to discuss the matter with the participant and the 
participant's Advisory Committee representative (or W3C management for 
the Team) before declaring the participant in Bad Standing.



[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/process.html#good-standing