apastsya
commented
13 years ago Comment created by pcurran:
"Details of such requests [to join an Expert Group,] including the organizational affiliation of the requester, together with the Spec Lead's official response, substantive deliberations within the EG about the matter, and any other official decisions related to EG membership must be published through the EG's public communication channel."
What more do you want?
The Spec Lead may not declare this business "administrative" (that's what the word "must" in the above text implies.)
No need for further clarification.
Jira issue originally created by user sean_sheedy:
Process Document review
line numbers: JCP-2.8-21SEP2011-Redlined.pdf
301 - Add words to allow members to petition an EG for membership, with a clear appeals path to the EC which can override the spec leads' decision. This was sorely needed for MSA.
PC> We've spent an inordinate amount of time on these issues, primarily to address your concerns about what happened on MSA many years ago. We've agreed that public disclosure is the most reasonable approach to take.
SS> My point is that there is no "public disclosure" if the spec lead considers this a "private adminstrative matter". Suggest wording that "prospective EG members may petition a spec lead for membership while a JSR is active, and spec lead must publish that petition in public (mailing list/wiki/whatever.)". Also "Prospective EG members whose membership is rejected by the spec lead or EG may appeal to the EC using the appeals process described elsewhere. As part of this process the EC shall consult with the member, spec lead, and EG members in reaching a decision. The EC shall decide either to uphold the rejection or require the EG to accept the member. This decision shall be binding." ("binding" because elsewhere EG votes are stated to be merely "advice", so the EG could ignore the "advice" and be within the rules.)