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.

[fantasai]

Suggested change

	or blatantly violating other well-established rules.
	or blatantly violating other well-established and documented rules.

[nigelmegitt]

I'm unsure about this and how it could be read - in many cases there are well-established, albeit cultural, norms, and I reckon there are things people could do that would be disruptive but not written down anywhere.

Thinking as I type, what if someone brought a bag of shredded paper to a meeting and began (quietly) throwing it like confetti whenever someone says the phrase "pull request"? I'm almost certain that's not unsafe or threatening, and isn't a written down rule, but the disruptive participant could argue if asked to leave that the Process wording doesn't give the Chair permission to suspend them.

Part of the issue here is the phrasing: I think the intent is to be a list of three things any one of which, on its own, would give the Chair permission to suspend, but an alternate reading is that the key point is the third one, violation of rules and that the first two items are really just examples. That's not an argument I'd look forward to having with a disruptive person in the heat of a meeting.

[fantasai]

Mm, it's definitely intended to be an "or" list, but I see what you're saying. Would removing "other" fix it, or is there a better fix?

[nigelmegitt]

It would also beg the demand: "show me where it's written down" which could be just another form of disruption. As a human I'm not very good at acting as a list of URLs to rules written down somewhere. (I know there are police whose job it is to be able to quote laws and phrases, but that's not a skill I have!)

[chaals]

I think we should trust chairs to have an arbitrary authority to suspend/exclude people for behaviour that "in the chair's judgement" is sufficiently disruptive or destructive of the necessary professional working environment to warrant it", based on the fact that this is documented (as per @tantek proposal that I strongly support) and there is an expectation of a very rapid Team Review of the decision, or some similar check/balance.

Because @nigelmegitt is right that disruptive people are often likely to argue chapter and verse against their disruptive behaviour being shut down, and we appoint chairs because we trust that inter alia they are generally much better than average in making such decisions. If it happens, there should be a review, automatically not just "on appeal", by a wider group than the chair.

Suggested change

	or blatantly violating other well-established rules.
	or for behaviour that, in the judgement of the chair, blatantly violates the principles of the Code of Conduct or the maintenance of a Professional Working Environtment.

[TallTed]

I think the principles of the CoC are how we maintain a PWE, so saying both is redundant. So maybe this?

Suggested change

	or blatantly violating other well-established rules.
	or, in the judgement of the chair, otherwise blatantly violating
	the principles of the Code of Conduct.

[nigelmegitt]

The CoC is not a full description of how we maintain a PWE; it helps from a behavioural aspect, but there are other aspects, such as how we organise and manage work.

[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).

[nigelmegitt]

Suggestion for resolving the possible misunderstanding comment above, and incorporating the later phrasing "in the judgement of the chair":

Suggested change

	for causing sustained disruption of the group's discussions,
	threatening the safety of any individual,
	or blatantly violating other well-established rules.
	for, in the judgement of the Chair, either
	causing sustained disruption of the group's discussions,
	or threatening the safety of any individual,
	or otherwise violating well-established rules.

[nigelmegitt]

I don't think "blatantly" is doing useful work in the sentence. Subtle misbehaviour can also be bad and worth calling out, especially if sustained.

[nigelmegitt]

Also, I don't think we need to say "and documented": documentation is obviously one way to demonstrate that a rule is well established, but some rules arise organically and are understood by the group through practice.

For example, in some groups people just interrupting verbally as part of the flow of the conversation is accepted. In others, formal queue management is the norm. Those things aren't usually written down, and may take time for participants to notice, but they're still behavioural rules.