- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:22:58 +0200
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
On 23/09/2014 21:47, Jeff Jaffe wrote: >> 5. Issue-34: Remove the Good Standing rules from the process >> document? <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/34> >> 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 because they did not want their participants to be >> labelled as being in Bad Standing when their Day Job prevented them >> from participating as frequently as desired. Thus, besides removing >> Good Standing, if the description is moved to some resource for >> Charter Creation, then then a name change for the two categories >> should be done. 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>
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2014 05:23:23 UTC