- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 23:56:58 -0600
- To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
- Cc: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>, "public-council@w3.org" <public-council@w3.org>
On 26 Nov 2012, at 1:28 PM, Wayne Carr wrote: > Some minor suggested edits. Thanks, Wayne. > > 1. For either algorithm: "After staff intervention, there are no further elections." would be better if the staff could declare an end to the intervention and the group goes back to being able to have elections (whatever the problem was that made it so the group couldn't govern itself is resolved). Agreed. Now reads more flexibly: "The staff may appoint the group's chair(s), close the group, do nothing, license the group to hold elections again, or take other actions." > > 2. Simple algorithm says "a majority of the participants elects the Chair". Full algorithm says " individual who receives the most votes is elected chair" For simple, could be no one gets majority if lot of candidates. Are you saying it should say (like for full) "most votes wins"? (I've changed it to that for the time being due to your observation about possibility of no majority.) > For full, could win with few votes if enough candidates. Suggest that votes can be changed until the election ends and a running total is visible (leaves flexibility for groups to converge towards candidates getting the most support if they choose to). Ok. (Added.) > > 3. In full algorithm: "AND Those participants must have participated in the group for at least half of the time since the date the group was create" For old CGs (since they never expire) it could be only a few people would be allowed to call for elections even if others were in the CG for years. Seems like something like 6 months or half the time whichever is shorter would be better. Yes. Added. Thanks! > > > On 11/26/2012 6:41 AM, Ian Jacobs wrote: >> On 15 Nov 2012, at 2:15 AM, Coralie Mercier wrote: >> >>> Dear Members of the Council >>> >>> Following discussion of CGs during TPAC 2012 earlier this month, we would like to convene a meeting of the council to review some of the topics covered and next steps: >>> >>> 1. Policy: >>> Chair selection algorithm >>> Update on some copyright topics >>> 2. Communications: >>> Distinction between WG and CG products >>> 3. Education: >>> Templates for good practices (e.g., charter template) >>> 4. Infrastructure: >>> Upcoming redesign and seeking beta-testers >>> >>> We set up a poll for when to organize the meeting; please express your preferences for the proposed dates/times for late November. >> Hello all, >> >> Given the poll results, the call will be: >> >> 29 November 2012 >> Noon ET for 1 hour >> Bridge: +1 617 761 6200 code 2686 (COUN) >> IRC: irc.w3.org #council >> >> For the "chair selection algorithm" agenda item, here are some ideas: >> http://www.w3.org/community/council/wiki/Chair_selection >> >> For the education agenda item, I will mention the Modern Guide project and ask people to suggest templates they think would be useful. >> >> For the communications agenda item, some of the discussion will include: >> >> * Existing mechanisms (document requirements [1], requirement in process not to create confusion with standards) >> * Using a word other than "Final" for "Final Specification Agreement" and "Final Report" >> * Use of the word "Report" (other than in titles) to refer to CG documents. >> * Additional suggestions for further distinguishing group products. >> >> Ian >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/community/reports/reqs/ >> >> -- >> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ >> Tel: +1 718 260 9447 >> >> >> >> > > -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2012 05:57:00 UTC