RE: ACTION REQUIRED: Call for Consensus: Proposed Process Change Regarding TAG Participation Rules; Respond by December 8, 2014

My position on this topic:	

David Singer said:
> We seek diversity because of the unconscious biases, the blind spots, lacunae, and so on.

Right.  This is just the way humans work; the clear lesson of most recent work on decision making I've read (e.g. Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow)  is that we're not aware of most of the considerations that go into our decisions. A lot of what we believe are deliberate rational calculations are in fact post-hoc rationalizations of instant intuitive/emotional judgments. It's not a slur on anyone to acknowledge their humanity and  be skeptical of their ability to put aside their economic interest, the guidance of their management, the fellowship of their colleagues, etc. as they gather their *feelings*  about a technical problem that has potential ramifications for their business and industry.  

Daniel Glazman said:
> We are always so prudent we take years and sometimes decades to experiment, to implement changes. 
> Nothing at W3C can happen in less than six months. It's also one of the reasons why we have the WHATWG around.

This is the most profound statement about W3C I've ever heard.  If I had the W3CMemes password, it would be linked to already :-)  

That said:
- My non-vote so far means that I concur with whatever consensus there is. I can live with either the status quo or the proposed compromise.
- While I am sad to see qualified and energetic people removed from the TAG or AB because of this rule, the fact remains that there are more highly qualified people on recent TAG and AB ballots than there are seats for them.  So long as that's true, I don't see a significant downside to constraints that spread TAG and AB participation across companies.
- Sure, we could extend the "diversity" argument to all sorts of gender, geographical, etc. factors.  On that I trust the AC to make a good call so long as a diverse set of people run.  I can easily imagine that there is a "Google"  or "Microsoft" position on matters that come before the TAG, but it strains credulity to think of a "male" or "French" position.
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Glazman [mailto:daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 6:04 AM
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Subject: Re: ACTION REQUIRED: Call for Consensus: Proposed Process Change Regarding TAG Participation Rules; Respond by December 8, 2014

On 10/12/14 20:09, David Singer wrote:

> People are good but not perfect. In another context, I might think, for example, I am sensitive to racism and sexism but I am also aware I am, in fact, a white male. We seek diversity because of the unconscious biases, the blind spots, lacunae, and so on. I think the same is true here. It's prudent.

Sorry, I feel the argument of prudence is becoming a big burden at W3C.

We are always so prudent we take years and sometimes decades to experiment, to implement changes. Nothing at W3C can happen in less than six months. It's also one of the reasons why we have the WHATWG around. Here, in the name of prudence, we are 'a priori' cautious of individuals instead of implementing a feedback loop that could detect such wrong behaviours and deal with them. We are so prudent we don't even trust the chairs of the TAG and AB to detect such wrong behaviours and take appropriate measures, including reporting to W3M for action.

So sorry, I do NOT buy that prudence arguments for two committees that are advisory for the first one, and have the Director aboard for the second one.

</Daniel>

Received on Thursday, 11 December 2014 17:58:31 UTC