- Document vetting process for new Working Group members
- Stakeholders: @felix, @malept, @kilian
- Is there a potential harm in giving full member Slack access for all governance members, i.e. allowed via low barrier to entry through some WGs
- Concerns about sensitive data being easily available to members of groups with low barriers to accepting new members
- All WGs should bring their join policies in line with other WGs
- Potential spying is one problem but free-riding is another problem
- Transparency means viewing but not participating
- Inclusion means wanting to participate
- Safety
- Inclusion > Safety > Transparency (Robotic laws style)
- Increase latency between WG accepting and CampS ratification before official acceptance
- Probationary period?
- Certain governance channels can be joined without being a formal member
- If all WGs standardize on "attend three (out of six consecutive) meetings and then WG votes on membership" and then C&S WG ratifies official governance membership, is that a sufficient "probationary" system?
- Do we want to ask WGs to standardize on consistent attendance of three out of any six consecutive meetings?
- C&S would like WGs to require ongoing active participation to maintain governance membership (in other words full Slack access and governance permissions), suggest standardizing on a minimum of ☝️ attendance + variation from the default is fine with reasons
- Should we put ☝️ into the charter?
- Make OKRs -- tabled until next meeting
- Complete
Reminder of who is next in the rotation
🎉 @ckerr
- PR a revision to the first warning response and @ the working group
- Update leave policy to include GitHub org modifications
- Create PR to add minimum attendance and ongoing participation requirements for governance membership to charter
- Document redaction guidelines and procedure