jsr348
  1. jsr348
  2. JSR348-64

Should there be a limit on the number of members from a single company/organization who can join an Expert Group?

    Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Component/s: Process Doc
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      If there is no limit on the number members from a single company/organization who can join an Expert Group then the Spec Lead, together with three EG members from his/her company/organization could throw anybody out of the EG.

      Even if there is a limit, should we be granting this absolute right to the Spec Lead plus any three members?

        Activity

        pcurran created issue -
        pcurran made changes -
        Field Original Value New Value
        Summary Should there be a limit on the number members from a single company/organization who can join an Expert Group? Should there be a limit on the number of members from a single company/organization who can join an Expert Group?
        Hide
        pcurran added a comment -

        Re: If there is no limit on the number members from a single company/organization who can join an Expert Group then the Spec Lead, together with three EG members from his/her company/organization could throw anybody out of the EG.

        We could modify the language in 2.2.3 to specify that the three EG members must be from different organizations (the language is likely to be somewhat clumsy...)

        As for the original question, the consensus at today's Working Group meeting seemed to be that we don't have a problem in this area, and shouldn't impose a limit. If we do, though, it should be merely advisory ("no more than x members should be from the same company or organization.")

        Show
        pcurran added a comment - Re: If there is no limit on the number members from a single company/organization who can join an Expert Group then the Spec Lead, together with three EG members from his/her company/organization could throw anybody out of the EG. We could modify the language in 2.2.3 to specify that the three EG members must be from different organizations (the language is likely to be somewhat clumsy...) As for the original question, the consensus at today's Working Group meeting seemed to be that we don't have a problem in this area, and shouldn't impose a limit. If we do, though, it should be merely advisory ("no more than x members should be from the same company or organization.")
        Hide
        pcurran added a comment - - edited

        Consensus reached during September f2f meeting:

        No. However, we should disclose during the application process for EGs what peoples' corporate affiliations are.

        EC members should take this into account when voting on JSRs. Diversity is the ideal, but if a JSR is being run in an open and inclusive manner but happens to be "non-diverse" then they may agree that it's appropriate for it to continue.

        Separate question: should we publicise the names of the individuals who are representing company <whatever> on the JSR page?

        If anyone cares, please open a separate issue.

        Show
        pcurran added a comment - - edited Consensus reached during September f2f meeting: No. However, we should disclose during the application process for EGs what peoples' corporate affiliations are. EC members should take this into account when voting on JSRs. Diversity is the ideal, but if a JSR is being run in an open and inclusive manner but happens to be "non-diverse" then they may agree that it's appropriate for it to continue. Separate question: should we publicise the names of the individuals who are representing company <whatever> on the JSR page? If anyone cares, please open a separate issue.
        Hide
        pcurran added a comment -

        Changed lines 259-262 of the September 21 draft to read:

        "Details of such requests, 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."

        Show
        pcurran added a comment - Changed lines 259-262 of the September 21 draft to read: "Details of such requests, 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."
        pcurran made changes -
        Status Open [ 1 ] Resolved [ 5 ]
        Resolution Fixed [ 1 ]
        Hide
        pcurran added a comment -

        Closed, as agreed at the September 21 Working Group meeting.

        Show
        pcurran added a comment - Closed, as agreed at the September 21 Working Group meeting.
        pcurran made changes -
        Status Resolved [ 5 ] Closed [ 6 ]

          People

          • Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            pcurran
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: