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

Re: AB size [Was: Re: Is strategic voting a problem? - was RE: Don't disclose election results]

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 06:43:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJK2wqXd5UdiLayzaus0PFX+2Q2KhNNNZeWRPwwHVWMsk8MOtA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Cc: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 6/8/14 9:07 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>
>> For the record I still don't support notably increasing its size.
>>
>
> What is your definition of `notable` here? Is 12 or 18 or 24 ok?


I think the current size is, if anything, too large.  I would not want to
see it grow beyond a dozen.


> I do support moving as much as possible of what it does to the AC at
>> large, or community groups, and making the AB's work as transparent as
>> possible (this allows AC reps to check that the people they trust really
>> *are* representing them).
>>
>
> What specific role/task cannot be handled by the AC and why?


AC members have a primary responsibility to their employer. In my role on
the AB, I do not.  General AC representatives already have their own
substantial time commitment; we could not just add to that.

I think it is also important that the AB make a significant commitment to
>> be available, that AC reps at large do not and should not have to make.
>>
>
> (I guess I'll have to wait for my `secret decoder ring` to arrive on July
> 1 to try to understand why the entire Membership shouldn't be privy to info
> shared with such a tiny subset of Members.)
>

I look forward to another lively discussion of openness.  :)

-C
Received on Monday, 9 June 2014 13:43:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:11 UTC