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

RE: Call for Consensus - "Use 'Schulze STV' for voting"

From: Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 14:24:09 +0000
To: David Singer <singer@mac.com>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
CC: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <16543de54b9b4175932db9d9706d8a5e@DM2PR02MB445.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
I find myself in an interesting position on this issue. While I have been trying to follow the thread diligently, I find that I cannot identify any specific rationale for changing the current voting methodology.  And this frustrates me. 

I see glimpses of some form of frustration - Chaals and others seem to be requesting change - and yet, the rationale for the change is unclear.  Is there a belief that installing a new voting systems will magically change the mission, the status, or the impact of the AB? Or will a new host of potential candidates be identified that will suddenly appear to become involved because of the changed method of selection?  Will this selection methodology help solve (or even have an impact on) the larger issues of membership, funding, relevance, or any other of the pressing problems. If so, how? 

I think that the selection process of the AB is the least of the problems that we have in the W3C.  We're focusing on a solution set that is intellectually interesting (the proper voting method) while ignoring the larger set of issues that are hard and challenging - like how to keep the W3C and Web relevant in the next decade or so, how to increase participation, how to attract more technical challenges, or how to impact the policy issues that are roiling the industry.

If we'd spent the intellectual capital on one of these pressing (possibly even survival) issues, we'd have had a discussion that might move the industry.  

To make this explicit, I agree with Mike, David, Jeff, and others who find this discussion either premature, irrelevant, or, in my case, both. 

Let's either make this a "factful" discussion with a set of discrete issues we're trying to solve and why these issues take precedence over the more pressing technical and policy issues faced by the consortium,  or let's drop it and get back to the business of dealing with significant issues that impact W3C and the industry.

Carl
Carl Cargill
Principal Scientist, Standards
W3C AC Representative, Adobe Systems
Cargill@adobe.com
Office: +1 541 488 0040
Mobile: +1 650 759 9803
@AdobeStandards
http://blogs.adobe.com/standards
Received on Friday, 16 May 2014 14:24:40 UTC

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