Give the Chair suspension powers for emergencies

[frivoal]

This is split from #1036, to facilitate discussion of the various independent aspects of that PR. See https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1036/files#r2069148149 for prior discussion on this particular aspect.

This PRs is against the ab-tag-discipline topic branch (source, preview), not the main branch, meaning we can itterate and accept individual pieces, and still have a chance at the end to judge the combined result before we decide whether to merge it.

---

Preview | Diff

[nigelmegitt]

General approval.

It could be seen as duplication of permissions assumed by the code of conduct section on reporting violations and supporting the code so it might make sense to add a note that this process wording is there to grant explicit permission to Chairs in this scenario, as suggested by the CoC.

[tantek]

This is a good improvement.

My one request is to add a short sentence / clause requiring documenting the suspension in the minutes of the "meeting or discussion" for transparency.

[chaals]

sure, WfM

[tantek]

Agree with @fantasai's suggested change. Would still like to see suspension for a meeting or discussion to require explicit documenting of the suspension in the minutes of that meeting or discussion for transparency.
I also agree with pairing this real-time power for a chair to establish immediate safety, with a subsequent automatic review (perhaps to be facilitated by the respective team contact).

[fantasai]

We should probably clarify that this type of temporary suspension cannot prevent a participant from participating in votes or CFCs.

[ianbjacobs]

The Code of Conduct says "Chairs, Team Contacts, and Event Organizers should take such immediate action as they deem necessary in order to stop unacceptable behavior." Could the emergency power text be grounded in the Code of Conduct with something like this:

"The W3C Code of Conduct empowers Chairs to take such immediate action as they deem necessary in order to stop unacceptable behavior, including asking someone to leave a meeting."

An alternative is to say nothing in the Process Document since this is already enabled through the Code of Conduct.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Give the Chair suspension powers for emergencies.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Subtopic: Give the Chair suspension powers for emergencies
<fantasai> github: Give the Chair suspension powers for emergencies
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//pull/1051
<florian> fantasai: I think this PR needs a bit of work, so it's probably not going to be done today
<florian> fantasai: but what it's trying to do is to give chairs explicit power to suspend people in emergency cases
<florian> fantasai: The hangup is trying to find the right wording
<florian> fantasai: there was a suggestion to refer to the Code of Conduct
<florian> fantasai: but it doesn't cover *all* problematic situations
<cwilso> q+
<florian> fantasai: nigel had a suggestion
<plh> q+ Ian
<florian> plh: I like the direction, but I don't think it's ready to merge
<plh> ack cw
<florian> cwilso: I still object to the Chair's ability to kick people out for "well established" but not written rule. There's too much room for abuse
<florian> q+
<plh> q+
<florian> cwilso: Chairs shouldn't have the ability to kick people out for "that's not how we do things"
<plh> ack ian
<fantasai> cwilso: But I'm in favor of adding this ability to the Process
<cwilso> as long as the "well established" is documented and expected, not possibly arbitrary.
<fantasai> Ian: Sorry, only noticed this PR this morning. My quick skim of the Code of Conduct is that this is taken into account, section 4 empowers chairs to take action they deem necessary
<fantasai> ... why does Process document need to duplicate
<fantasai> ... things like safety and sustained interruption are covered in CoC
<fantasai> ... If there are other things, shouldn't have unacceptable defined in Process
<plh> q-
<fantasai> ... Make Code definitive place for this
<fantasai> plh: Give 1 minute and then switch to next topic due to time
<plh> ack florian
<fantasai> florian: Reason why is that Code of Conduct only talked about behavior that is acceptable or unacceptable. Tiptoing wrt discipline.
<fantasai> ... What clearly establishes disciplinary power is the Process, which gives that power to the CEO
<fantasai> ... CEO can delegate, but this directly gives Chair suspension power
<fantasai> ... Clearly needs more time to discuss
<plh> ack fan
<Ian> Ian: We should not have "unacceptable behavior" in two places. And the Code of Conduct gives Chairs powers.
<fantasai> fantasai: Says chairs can ask to leave, but they could refuse...

[tantek]

Two things. First I think the current PR as-is is still a net improvement both appropriate for and worth landing in the Process (and further iteration as necessary), as long as we add a point about requiring documentation about the suspension.

For editor's consideration/discretion: e.g. immediately after this line in the PR:

or blatantly violating other well-established rules.

Something like:

The chair <em class="rfc2119">must</em> record the suspension
in the minutes of the meeting or discussion, 
and <em class="rfc2119">should</em> cite any such rule(s) that were violated, 
e.g. subsection(s) of the Code of Conduct.

Second, empowering chairs in this way in addition to (or perhaps one day instead of) the CEO follows our goals of transitioning the consortium to be more member-led.

The larger principle here is IMO that we should treat any CEO powers in the Process as being a transitional compromise state we agreed to as part of technically completing "Director-free" rather than an end state, and thus subject to continued careful analysis and transition to more member-led alternatives.

[frivoal]

Merging into the ab-tag-discipline branch, as decided on the 2025-09-24 Process CG call. That branch itself is not being merged into main, and does not represent consensus, merely work in progress.