Consolidate discipline-related text #432
Conversation
|
OK, but I think we have (separate) consensus to de-link the guidelines... |
|
LGTM |
index.bs
Outdated
| When serious and/or repeated violations do occur, | ||
| including failure to meet the requirements of this process, | ||
| the membership agreement, or applicable laws, | ||
| and repeated attempts to address these violations have not resolved the situation, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The allowance of repeated attempts to address violations applies to violations of the Process. It is not necessary for all violations in scope here, and indeed should not be required for e.g. egregious violations of the law or people's physical safety. r- without adjusting this merge of two paragraphs to maintain their previous meaning.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point. How about:
When serious and/or repeated violations do occur,
including failure to meet the requirements of this process
where repeated attempts to address these violations have not resolved the situation,
or violation of the membership agreement or applicable laws,
the [=Director=] may take disciplinary action,
including suspending or removing for cause
a participant in any group (including the [=AB=] and [=TAG=]).
I think this scope it better, and to be equivalent to the original phrasing. I do wonder if egregious violations of the CEPC (which fall under "failure to meet the requirements of this process") should require repeated attempts to resolve the situation, or if exclusion can be more immediate, but maybe this should be open as a separate issue, to keep this one editorial.
|
somehow repeating repeat seems excessive to me, and I agree that there are some violations that are sufficiently egregious, or where protecting the W3C or individuals is required, that immediate action may be needed. I think trying to describe the ramp-up here is pointless; that's a best practice, that we try to warn people and take corrective action. The point of the process is that serious or repeated violations can result in disciplinary action, up to and including... so for process text I'd remove the escalation phrase:
|
Describing the escalation process for disciplinary action isn't necessary, and it may act as a constraint against swift action against egregious cases.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The currently-proposed phrasing of the paragraph "When serious ..." changes the way the topic of that paragraph is perceived, and links it too closely with the CEPC, losing its more general sense of application from the original wording, because that is the closest thing mentioned that can be "violated". r-
|
To make it flow better, could we simply insert before
Participants (I wondered about saying "particularly the CEPC" but I think it's better not singled out with such a word; gross violations of other policies would also be bad.) This would put the word "violations" clearly into the context of all these requirement |
|
Does this also address #312 ? |
Thanks @frivoal! Yes, #432 addresses #418. I'd like to propose a commit to this PR... Note on dependency: Given that one of the changes balloted in #432 removes the link to the out-dated document “Guidelines for Disciplinary Action” (which the AB had a weak consensus to unlink from the process) and that document is in our Chairs guidebook and is probably bookmarked by people, if #432 is approved, I’m going to raise an issue in the guidebook repo to install a redirect from it to the banning document, when process 2021 is operational. |
This proposed commit reinstates a reference in the Process Document to the details about the implementation and Director delegation of the W3C Process Document mandate to suspend or remove participants from groups. Outstanding: I do not know how to add to the bibio, nor whether this would be a normative or informative reference.
|
From a CEPC perspective, I am fine with the proposed language. @koalie I am concerned with several of the details in the proposed guidelines. Where should I comment about that? |
Please, take this up as quickly as you can with w3mreq@ as it's a W3C management developed document. W3M has approved that document already and we're literally ready to share it with the Members and Chairs. |
dwsinger
removed
the
Agenda+
index.bs
Outdated
| the [=Director=] <em class="rfc2119">may</em> take disciplinary action. | ||
| Arbitration in the case of further disagreement is governed by paragraph 19 of the Membership Agreement [[MEMBER-AGREEMENT]]. | ||
| Refer to the <a href="https://www.w3.org/2002/09/discipline">Guidelines for Disciplinary Action</a> [[DISCIPLINARY-GL]]. | ||
| Arbitration is governed by paragraph 19 of the Membership Agreement [[MEMBER-AGREEMENT]]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
delete: "Arbitration is governed by paragraph 19 of the Membership Agreement [[MEMBER-AGREEMENT]]." as it doesn't add anything here.
|
@tantek, looking at this through github's "conversation" view is a bit of a mess, but if you look at the "files changed" view, the whole diff is there, with 3 suggestions for changes inline (2 from @fantasai, 1 from @wseltzer). Nevertheless, @TzviyaSiegman +1ed your comment, and @jeffjaffe made largely the same remark during the call, so if multiple reasonable people have the same feeling, there's probably something to it. I think the 2 suggestions from @fantasai are completely editorial and just make the phrasing better, but I initially didn't want to merge them without the group's input, in case someone thought they affected the meaning in an undesirable way. Given that nobody so far has complained about the substance about those edits, but that multiple people are unhappy about having a multi-layered thing to review, I'm now merging them. As for @wseltzer 's comment, personally I'd be inclined to reject it, but it doesn't feel right for me do to this on my own accord. My opinion does not weight more than @wseltzer 's. That said, the sentence @wseltzer wants to remove exists prior to this clean up, so we can disentangle this by dropping her suggestion from this PR, and to filing it separately. @wseltzer, assuming your support for this PR doesn't hinge on that, and that this is just one more thing you though we could/should do, do you mind if I refile it as a separate issue? |
|
(Incidentally, I am not terribly fussed about the difference between "when X occurs, Y happens" and "if X occurs, Y happens". One emphasizes the temporality, the other the conditionality; I slightly preferred the former for some reason, but whatever) |
|
The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed
The full IRC log of that discussion<fantasai> Topic: Consolidating Discipline-related text<fantasai> github: https://github.com//pull/432 <fantasai> florian: Merged in various suggestions <dsinger> q? <fantasai> florian: Suggest looking at the diffs rather than the conversation <fantasai> https://github.com//pull/432/files <fantasai> dsinger: Changes *should* be editorial. <fantasai> dsinger: Can fix up minor problems later also <wseltzer> lgtm <dsinger> q?> <fantasai> lgtm <fantasai> RESOLVED: Accept PR |
css-meeting-bot
removed
the
Agenda+
frivoal
added
Closed: Accepted
frivoal
removed
the
Commenter satisfied/accepting
Addresses #418