Disciplinary action

[mnot]

In S 3.1.1.1:

The CEO may take disciplinary action, including suspending or removing for cause a participant in any group (including the AB and TAG) if serious and/or repeated violations, such as failure to meet the requirements on individual behavior of (a) this process and in particular the CEPC, or (b) the membership agreement, or (c) applicable laws, occur. Refer to the Guidelines to suspend or remove participants from groups.

Further down, in S 5.5:

Any individual (regardless of whether they are associated with a Member) may appeal any decision made in connection with this Process (except those having a different appeal process) by registering a Formal Objection with the Team.

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:

The Member agrees that it and its representatives will be bound by the requirements of the Consortium Charter, Bylaws, Process Document, and other documents normatively linked from them, including the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc).

That might be relevant if W3C were to decline renewal of the Member Agreement:

Thereafter, this Agreement shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms ("Renewal Terms") beginning on the Anniversary Date unless the Consortium notifies Member six (6) months prior to expiration of the then-current Renewal Term of their intent not to renew this 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.

[frivoal]

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]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Clarifying disciplinary actions and appeals, and agreed to the following:

• ACTION: fantasai take org membership termination issue to the Board
• ACTION: florian take individual disciplinary action appeal issue to the AB

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Subtopic: Clarifying disciplinary actions and appeals
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/786
<fantasai> florian: mnot raised an interesting set of questions related to disciplinary action by CEO
<fantasai> florian: One is, Process says that decisions can be appealed, and if we don't say how, you can raise an FO
<fantasai> ... given that there's no such specific wording about disciplinary action by CEO
<fantasai> ... means that such action can be appealed through FO
<fantasai> ... That seems to be the impilication of the Process
<fantasai> ... Is a Council the right way to deal with such appeals?
<fantasai> ... Should we set up something else? Should we say they can't be appealed?
<fantasai> florian: Mark also raised another question, it's not obvious that the Process gives CEO power to terminate an organization (rather than an individual)
<fantasai> ... and I would agree that the Process currently doesn't say anything about that, but maybe should think about that
<fantasai> ... and involve the Board about it
<florian> fantasai: spinning up a council for disciplinary action is probably not the best thing to do
<florian> fantasai: so if we want an appeals process, we should come up with something else
<florian> fantasai: two options I can think of:
<florian> fantasai: a) appeal to the Board
<florian> fantasai: b) appeal to the AB
<cwilso> q+
<fantasai> cwilso: Given this is Membership...
<fantasai> fantasai: this is individual
<florian> fantasai: probably a question for the AB, but maybe people here have thoughts
<fantasai> florian: both were raised
<fantasai> cwilso: even for individuals, this is a decision of the CEO
<fantasai> ... I think it's more appropriate to appeal to Board
<fantasai> ... I agree appealing to Council doesn't feel appropriate
<florian> q+
<fantasai> ... I'm not sure we can do much here without changing things like Member agreement?
<fantasai> florian: Interestingly, the Member agreement normatively includes the Process
<fantasai> ... that's the only way to effectively change the Member agreement, for not-new members
<fantasai> ... [missed]
<fantasai> ... My read of Process is that currently it is the Council, but that's not great
<fantasai> ... so probably pushing that to the Board or AB is a good idea
<fantasai> ... we should ask both
<fantasai> florian: wrt establishing a way to dismiss organizations, in practice could do it in the Process, but would want to ask Board input on that
<florian> fantasai: on the question of dismissing an org, it should be a decision by the board, probably by supermajority, only revertible by a a supermajority of the board
<florian> fantasai: AB or TAG shouldn't be able to do that
<florian> fantasai: also we have to make sure that termination of membership in Process terms is synced with termination in bylaws terms
<florian> fantasai: would be weird to have a disconnect
<florian> fantasai: but this is for the board
<fantasai> florian: I agree, we should probably log an action item to take the Board part to the Board
<cwilso> +1 Florian
<fantasai> ACTION: fantasai take org membership termination issue to the Board
<fantasai> florian: for individual disciplinary action appeal, take that question to the AB
<fantasai> ACTION: florian take individual disciplinary action appeal issue to the AB

[mnot]

florian: Interestingly, the Member agreement normatively includes the Process

That doesn't necessarily mean that the Process can change the contract which is the Member Agreement. The current agreement already has a very brief termination clause:

The Consortium shall have the right, upon sixty (60) days prior written notice and in a manner consistent with the Bylaws, to dissolve the Consortium, by terminating all Consortium Member Agreements.

However, as I point out above, the MA does give us a once-a-year opportunity to decline to renew the agreement. Having some guidance and oversight over that power might be interesting. And, of course, it's also a mechanism for changing the member agreement too (for those members who have that clause).

I agree that the appeal process for orgs is probably through the Board. What might be good is some hooks for that in the Process and CEPC, so that folks are clear on how it would be handled.