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: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 09:43:40 -0400
Message-id: <32F71EEA-0F1D-4451-A979-B4F740C7FEB0@apple.com>
To: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Agreed, as previously stated, I think that the AB needs to stay at roughly its current size, and there be a clear “you are on, and responsible” state that is best achieved by election.


On Jun 9, 2014, at 9:31 , Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:

> TL;DR: I agree with Chaals.  I do not support notably increasing the size of the AB, nor making it self-selective (since it's impossible to do that without making it much larger), and I do not support getting rid of it altogether.  I do support making it as transparent as possible.
> 
> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 14:29:41 +0200, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 6/6/14 11:42 AM, Yosuke Funahashi wrote:
> On 6/7/14, 12:30 AM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
> BUT  I still think the much worse problem is that we have qualified and committed people who wish to contribute to the AB/TAG but aren't elected because we are forced to select only 5 of them each year.   Nothing I've seen in these threads indicates that there are more than 20-30 people in the consortium who know/care enough about what either group does and have the employer support to spend time on it.  I'm just not convinced that there would have been a downside to having all 12 of the people who ran for the AB this year be seated, and letting them self-select who stays depending on their actual contributions.  Take away the fun of the competition and the supposed prestige of winning, we'll be left with the people who really want to spend their time working to improve how W3C runs and what it says about the architecture of the Web.
> 
> +1
> 
> This is one of the reasons why I wrote a message that we should make the AB open. Some people sounded comfortable with keeping the AB small or current size, which I don't understand at all.
> 
> For the record, I also support increasing the size of the AB.
> 
> For the record I still don't support notably increasing its size.
> 
> 
> Of course I also [again] support making it self-selective.
> 
> I do not support this either. Having an elected, representative AB allows AC reps to trust the people who represent them. This is why I think it is very important to have the AB selected in a manner that represents the desires of the AC as best possible.
> 
> 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).
> 
> 
> I would also support deleting the AB all together and having its `role` usurped by AC reps (as well as some set of Webizens).
> 
> I do not support deleting the AB altogether.
> 
> I do think it is important that it is as transparent as possible, consistent with giving the team the ability to hold conversations in confidence on matters they think are sensitive and are not comfortable asking the AC at large.
> 
> 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.
> 
> cheers
> 
> -- 
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
> 
> 

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 9 June 2014 13:44:11 UTC

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