chaals

See also thread beginning https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2015Mar/0087.html

Addressing the substance, with thoughts that haven't crystallised for me yet: I'm uneasy about this in general. I understand the need for accountability, but I don't think single-seat recalls provide...

TL;DR: I've thought a fair bit more. I'm more opposed to individual recall, more supportive of Good Standing requirements but with caveats about how they are implemented, and ambivalent about...

I think @dbaron identifies a problem that a mechanism to recall a single person raises. To phrase his larger question another way: Should a 3/4 majority of the members be...

Given that membership is governed by the Board, presumably if members lose their membership rights that means that wherever the process says "members can..." those rights are suspended until such...

It's not obvious why it would be silly to talk about the privacy and security implications of data being hosted on someone else's computer. On the contrary, it seems pretty...

An alternative mid-ground would be stating a "supermajority" threshold: twice => > 2/3 or 67%, thrice => > 3/4 or 75%

I agree with Ivan's thinking here. People do copy examples and work from them, instead of carefully reading the spec, and it is important that the spec itself at least...

If the W3C decides to do this I suggest they extend generic "member" access. Otherwise it's a bit odd to be in discussions where it regularly isn't possible to find...

> I'm not convinced that people should have lifetime access. I'd prefer to see this status reviewed periodically, similar to what should happen with Invited Experts. In principle, I agree....