W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > June 2014

Re: general thanks

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 06:03:28 +0200
Message-ID: <538D4910.2070004@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: public-w3process@w3.org
On 03/06/2014 01:38, Bassetti, Ann wrote:

> I'd like to say, despite my vocal concerns and general exhaustion on the multiple voting topics  I am deeply grateful to all of you for _trying_ to
> make something better that you perceive to be not set up correctly. 
> 
> I remain to be convinced, but I'd far rather have all this discussion than no one doing anything.

:-) Ann, we are all people of good will, and we all give time beyond
our normal commitment to try to make things better here. Convince me
and I will happily drop my proposals :-)

About our electoral process and in particular the stats' disclosure, I
am under the impression that we have this discussion only because an
open system was not chosen in the first place. Nobody would complain
about stats being disclosed had we chosen to disclose them from day 1.

Again, between age 13 when I ran to become the representative of my
class at school and now, AB and TAG elections have been the _only_ elections,
governmental or not, w/o stats disclosure. I call that a bug, I call
that a bad system for bad reasons.

As a candidate, one cannot have access to his/her results. As a voter,
one cannot understand how his vote influenced the positive results, or
why his/her candidates failed. You and Larry say people could face
some sort of retaliation from their employer if the stats are published.
But that's already the case w/o the stats being published !!! When a
Member nominates an individual to the AB and that individual is not
elected, there _IS_ a resulting negative perception. I even heard the
following words about a past AB election: "I was sent on the front
line on a suicide mission"... So I don't think disclosing the stats
change the situation at all. It would give us more tools, it would not
increase the issues.

As a reminder, some Members do care about the AB and see a seat at the
AB as a honorific position because the AB's name contains "Board"...
You can all testify I have always said it was a mistake to call it "Board"
exactly for that reason.

"Advisory Committee" should have been called "The Membership".
"Ac-Rep" should have been called "Member-Rep".
"Advisory Board" should have been called "Advisory Committee".

No side-effect because of a "Board" not being a Board...
Words. Do. Matter.

</Daniel>
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2014 04:03:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:10 UTC