[Community] summary of last week's (3/28/2007) call

[Drummond Reed]

+1 that inactivity should be a reasonable reason for the SC to remove a WG.
In fact we might have an "inactive" status that a WG reverts to
automatically after X period (3 months?) of inactivity. In inactive status,
they would no longer have an SC representative. They could apply for
reinstatement to active status at any time for, say, 6 mos (or 1 year),
after which they would just be removed altogether.

=Drummond 

-----Original Message-----
From: community-bounces at idcommons.net
[mailto:community-bounces at idcommons.net] On Behalf Of Eugene Eric Kim
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 10:19 AM
To: Identity Commons
Subject: Re: [Community] summary of last week's (3/28/2007) call

Owen Davis wrote:
> +1.  "the only power the Stewards Council has in this area is to remove
> a working group"
> 
> Removing a working group should likely be a last resort after other
> approaches (decreasing reputation, fines or other disciplinary actions)
> fail.

I agree with all these things, and would add one exception: inactivity.
If a working group isn't doing anything, we should eliminate it, rather
than attempt to revive it.  This is a point that Gabe has made several
times, and I agree with it.

=Eugene

-- 
=========================================================================
Eugene Eric Kim ................................... http://xri.net/=eekim
Blue Oxen Associates ........................... http://www.blueoxen.com/
=========================================================================
_______________________________________________
Community mailing list
Community at idcommons.net
http://mail.idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/community