Re: Please Open ISSUE-34 (good standing)

On Sep 13, 2014, at 23:05 , chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> There are very few groups who still use the concept of good standing, and it is not at all clear that the very specific rules are actually useful ones anyway.
> 
> I would like this issue to be opened - I propose that we remove the entire section and instead move the statement from chapter 7 allowing groups to use specific procedures to the section on chartering, and clarify that it can include rules on standing, entitlement to attend meetings, etc. I also think any such rules need to be applied either universally or not at all, rather than leaving them at the discretion of chairs.
> 

I think that:

* good standing needs to move from being a normal part of the process, to being a tool available to groups and their chairs; so define it but don’t require it
* a group intending to have good standing available as a tool needs to say so in their charter (“may use the good standing process”)
* we need to look at other places in the process where it is used (e.g. TAG and AB, formally elected groups)
* on the question of chair discretion
  — it’s fine for the chair to say “to affect this decision/vote, you need to be in good standing” (e.g. because it really needs people to be up to speed);  but only if participants have the opportunity to get into good standing;  it’s not needed that good standing is used for every decision
  — it is not OK for the chair to use discretion about who is affected; it’s either a uniform requirement, or not; you cannot exclude person A for lacking good standing while accepting person B who also lacks it


David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2014 12:11:25 UTC