frivoal
commented
1 year ago Collectively, this can be read so as to allow a person to appeal a disciplinary action by the CEO.
Is that the intent?
If so, it may be good to clarify this. I would argue that a clear right of appeal actually enhances the CEO's ability to take disciplinary action when necessary, because they are not 'out on a limb' as much when making such a decision; if it is ill-judged or egregious, there is some certainty that it can be corrected.
I would agree that this is what it means, and that it is a good thing.
I think we could debate whether formal objections and going to the Council is the best path of appeal here, or whether we should exercise "(except those having a different appeal process)" and devise some specific process here, but as it stands, my read would be indeed that disciplinary action can presently be appealed to by means of Formal Objection.
Also, I notice that one kind of disciplinary action isn't covered here: cessation of Membership.
I concur. The Advisory Committee is a Group, and as the the CEO may take disciplinary action, including suspending or removing for cause a participant in any group, it is possible to exclude an even AC Rep, but I do not know of provisions in the Process to exclude a Member Organization as such, they could always nominate a different AC Rep.
I agree it would be useful to have provisions somewhere enabling termination of Membership for an organization found in severe / repeated / deliberate violations of the CEPC or of other parts of the Process or Member agreement. This should not be used lightly (nor usable lightly), but if an organization is not attempting to abide by the standards of this community, keeps appointing people that cannot/will not respect the rules, and keeps disrupting the abilities of others to participate normally, then having the ability to exclude would be useful.
It is not obvious to me that the Process is the right place to have such provisions, but it might be.
css-meeting-bot
mnot
In S 3.1.1.1:
Further down, in S 5.5:
Collectively, this can be read so as to allow a person to appeal a disciplinary action by the CEO.
Is that the intent?
If so, it may be good to clarify this. I would argue that a clear right of appeal actually enhances the CEO's ability to take disciplinary action when necessary, because they are not 'out on a limb' as much when making such a decision; if it is ill-judged or egregious, there is some certainty that it can be corrected. When an indident is highly vislble or politically charged, a right of appeal can help diffuse the pressure on the decision-maker; they are just part of a process, not the ultimate authority.
If not, I'd suggest we either consider making such actions appealable, or adding an alternative mechansim (e.g., confirmation by another body like a Council or the AC, for the most serious actions).
Also, I notice that one kind of disciplinary action isn't covered here: cessation of Membership. The Member Agreemeent doesn't specifically allow termination for violation of the CEPC or similar, but it does place an obligation upon members:
That might be relevant if W3C were to decline renewal of the Member Agreement:
If that clause were ever excercised, it might be good to have some connection to the langauge in the Process and CEPC to rely upon. Likewise, a level of appeal or confirmation would again make it more usable when necessary.