[Community] summary of today's (4/18/2007) call

[Kaliya Hamlin]

I would like us to consider three scenarios....

Inactivity is not a 'serious' thing it is something that happens  
naturally with groups and we should have some defaults that are very  
clear and it is not a big deal to "remove" the working group.

I think we should also be encourage working groups when they are  
"done" with their thing to 'retire' themselves so we don't have to go  
through the trouble of 'removing them for inactivity'

=Kaliya



On Apr 19, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Brett McDowell wrote:

> I agree with Bill that removing an "inactive steward" should be a  
> lower bar than dissolving a WG.  That said, I think it should  
> require three steps:
>
> 1) a clear rule that defines participation expectations and the  
> "rules" for remaining in "good standing"
> 2) notification to the participant that they "are now considered  
> not in good standing and are subject to removal"
> 3) a simple majority decision by the SC to remove them.
>
> As for the "rules" for #1... I think Liberty and OASIS (and W3C?)  
> have very similar rules for participation and remaining in good  
> standing. They are along the lines of: "failure to participate in  
> two out of three consecutive meetings or electronic votes".
>
> But if someone shows up between being put in "not in good standing"  
> status and the decision by the SC, they should be immediately  
> reinstated to "good standing" and the SC should not have the  
> ability to remove them for inactivity.  This means you get at least  
> "one more chance" by definition of the policy before the SC could  
> remove you.
>
> ...again, I'm sorry if this is more minutia than anyone wants to  
> think about right now, but I really believe being "anal" about  
> policy definitions early in our evolution will save us some  
> headaches later.
>
> --Brett
>
> On Apr 19, 2007, at 2:05 AM, Bill Washburn wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> also...
>> I would offer that removing an "inactive steward" (to be  
>> explicitly delineated in the bylaws, obviously) ought to be far  
>> more straight forward than dissovling a working group.  Maybe I'm  
>> still missing something, but to me  the prospect of removing a   
>> working group  (which is a community in its own right usually)  
>> from the upside-down-umbrella meta-community of ID Commons is not  
>> to be done lightly, or thought of as a simple matter of majority  
>> rule, or to be measured by remaining "active" in some prescribed  
>> fashion.
>>
>> I believe a community commons is far more important, more nuanced,  
>> and naturally more complicated than that.  The Internet is most of  
>> all a vast commons ultimately and it's most basic value is caught  
>> up in its profoundly diverse nature.  Of that I believe there can  
>> be little or no doubt.
>>
>> cheers,
>> -bill
>>
>> Brett wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I think "a majority of those voting when a quorum is present" is fair
>> and a common practice for basic decisions.  The question I have is
>> whether or not we want a class of decisions that require more
>> explicit participation.  For example we could require 75% of all
>> stewards to approve something like the dissolution of a Working  
>> Group.
>>
>> >
>> >     Our consensus on the call was that the answer should be  
>> yes.  The
>> >     difficulty is if we have a bunch of inactive Stewards or  
>> inactive
>> >     Working Groups who aren't participating.
>>
>> That's why we need the ability to remove Stewards from our quorum for
>> lack of participation.  Whether or not that means we have to dissolve
>> their WG as well is a question raised on a recent call... was that
>> resolved?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Community mailing list
>> Community at idcommons.net
>> http://mail.idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/community
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community mailing list
> Community at idcommons.net
> http://mail.idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/community

Kaliya - Identity Woman

AIM:kaliya at mac.com
skype:identitywoman
Y!:earthwaters

http://www.identitywoman.net
http://www.unconference.net

510 472-9069 (bay area)
415 425-1136 (on the road)



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.idcommons.net/pipermail/community/attachments/20070419/dafd7429/attachment.htm