Clarify that removal from AB/TAG does not affect councils once formed

[frivoal]

Following up on #986, we should make a clarification: removal from AB/TAG does not affect councils once formed, as their composition is fixed at formation, and Councils have their own ways to deal with people who should be excluded from participation.

[TallTed]

perhaps, s/removal from AB/TAG does not affect councils once formed/removal from AB/TAG does not affect membership of previously convened councils/

[nigelmegitt]

I'd say it slightly different again: removal from AB/TAG does not, by itself, imply removal from any in-flight Councils whose composition has already been fixed; however Councils may take note of such removal and follow their own processes.

I think we're all agreeing with the intent here though.

[fantasai]

There's no process for removing someone from a Council. The only thing possible is to dissolve the Council and form a new one.

[hober]

Should Council chair(s) have the same ability to suspend participants as chairs of other groups?

[nigelmegitt]

Should Council chair(s) have the same ability to suspend participants as chairs of other groups?

Yes

[frivoal]

Should Council chair(s) have the same ability to suspend participants as chairs of other groups?

https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#discipline says that discipline is on the CEO, and can be delegated. (#882 explores changing that for the AB and TAG as such, but not (so far) for the Council). https://www.w3.org/guide/process/suspension.html says how the CEO has delegated, and that includes the ability to suspend participants. The specific language used though talks about an ability to suspend from "W3C Groups" which is a defined term that means "one of W3C’s Working Groups, Interest Groups, Advisory Committee, Advisory Board, or TAG". So it is not clear that the current delegation from the CEO enables the Council's chair to suspend participants.

I think the question initially asked in this issue has been answered (as far as the ab-tag-discipline branch is concerned), but I'd say that what you raise is a an interesting follow up point. @hober, would you mind opening a separate issue about it? I think we could then close this one.

[chaals]

Should Council chair(s) have the same ability to suspend participants as chairs of other groups?

Hmm. Given the task for councils, and that there are some pretty heavy mechanisms already around who sits on them (people have to be elected, can be excluded through a formal process already, ...), I'd suggest that some ability to exclude people from discussion is necessary, but that it should be pretty carefully justified on the basis of what is clearly misconduct, limited and/or subject to external review/appeal, and that it not cover the right/duty to vote on an outcome.

The purpose of our current mode of electing bodies is to provide some representation of minority positions. This anticipates disagreement, deliberately requiring discussion rather than dismissing issues because none of the elected representatives care.

If there is a sentiment that people who have sustained disagreement with a large majority are ipso facto a problem then I think there is something seriously broken.

By the same token, while I understand the real frustrations of someone who seriously believes that a supermajority are pursuing a course that is "wrong" in some important way, for whatever reason, there isn't a clear justification for genuinely unprofessional behaviour, and there is a case for making someone "sit on the naughty mat" and at least be temporarily blocked from further participation if they don't meet basic standards of expected behaviour.