Closed plehegar closed 11 months ago
Note that the part "If anyone raises an issue to the CEO that a participant fails to meet the requirements" was not intended to be subjected to the Chairs asking for a removal or suspension. So I moved it up out of that sub-bullet.
Thanks to @swickr and @jeffjaffe for their initial feedback. This is ready for wider review.
Diff link is out of date: diff for most recent commit at time of posting this comment
I suggest to remove "within 6 months" because it complicates things and is harder to check/verify and enforce.
I suggest to remove "within 6 months" because it complicates things and is harder to check/verify and enforce.
That was added because previously there was no time limit on it at all, meaning that after one escalation no Chair or team member could ever take further action without going via the CEO. That seemed unreasonable to me, and I felt that some duration should be specified after which reversion to the normal state for any participant would occur.
Note: Need to clarify who is expected to communicate a decision.
Please note request here https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/592#issuecomment-1130490019
Diff link is out of date: diff for most recent commit at time of posting this comment
I fixed the link in the original comment. It's now tied to the branch itself rather than a commit, so should always be up-to-date.
Note that #162 is proposing to do an intermediary step instead. Its scope is reduced due to the immediate need to remove the requirement on the Chairs to send the warning, as well as making it clear that CEPC takes precedence over the Guidebook.
(withdrawing this pull request for now)
These changes allow:
This is a follow-up to https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/592
Diff