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

Re: Proposed Process Change Regarding TAG Participation Rules

From: Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 10:32:25 +0000
Cc: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Message-Id: <4BDF0E9C-BD72-45E8-8086-A0C7BE4E615C@gmail.com>
To: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>

> On 3 Nov 2014, at 10:27, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> 
> On Nov 2, 2014, at 2:07 , Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com <mailto:szilles@adobe.com>> wrote:
> 
>> To be concrete, as I understand JC's proposal
>> 
>> Section 2.5.3 Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Vacated Seats says:
>> " When an Advisory Board or TAG participant changes affiliations, as long as Advisory Board and TAG participation constraints are respected, the individual MAY continue to participate until the next regularly scheduled election for that group. Otherwise, the seat is vacated."
>> AND
>> Section 2.5.1 Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Participation Constraints says:
>> “A Member organization is permitted at most one participant on the TAG.”
>> 
>> I believe that JC is proposing that section 2.5.3 Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Vacated Seats should say:
>> " When an Advisory Board or TAG participant changes affiliations, the individual MAY continue to participate until the next regularly scheduled election for that group. Otherwise, the seat is vacated.”
> 
> Not quite; we’re only asking that they vacate their seat at the next regular election if, in fact, remaining would violate a membership rule of the TAG, correct?
> 

I would strongly prefer “until the end of their term” rather than “until the next regular election.” This would also have the benefit of covering both elected and appointed seats in the event of affiliation change.

Dan

>> 
>> That is, the restriction, “as long as Advisory Board and TAG participation constraints are respected” is removed, at least for TAG participation.
>> 
>> In particular, the normal rule that, “A Member organization is permitted at most one participant on the TAG” is not changed.
> 
> Right. “If a membership affiliation change occurs for a TAG member, and this rule would then be broken, the situation must be resolved at the latest at the next regular election, either through the expiry of one or more terms, or by the resignation of all but one of the participants from the member in question, or a combination of these.”  Or something like that.
> 
>> 
>> I, for one, agree that a short term (less than a year) “over representation” by a Member is something we could live with to avoid extra elections and disruption of planned activities. Allowing the temporary continuation allows for a more graceful transition.
>> 
>> I am much less excited about allowing a Member to have more than one representative on the AB or TAG. It would be better for those bodies to find ways to enable non-elected participation where that is possible. The AB has already solicited participation in its Task Forces by people outside the AB and I see no reason why the TAG cannot do the same, including inviting participation in their meetings.
> 
> I agree.
> 
>> 
>> Steve Zilles
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Wayne Carr [mailto:wayne.carr@linux.intel.com]
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 12:42 PM
>>> To: David Singer; public-w3process
>>> Subject: Re: Proposed Process Change Regarding TAG Participation Rules
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2014-11-01 01:40, David Singer wrote:
>>>> On Oct 31, 2014, at 19:07 , Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 10/31/14 10:23 AM, JC Verdié wrote:
>>>>>> I support that in the case of the two-people conflict occurs, we can live with
>>> that until the next election and *not* trigger a special election, but when the
>>> regular election arrives, one of them will have to give up with his TAG seat.
>>>>> Agree.
>>>>> 
>>>> I think we can certainly look at the case where the next regular election is
>>> ‘soon’.  I am trying to work out in my mind what that means.  The whole term?
>>> Until the next annual election (seats are staggered, correct?)?  Special elections
>>> are a pain.
>>> 
>>> Next annual election seems good seems reasonable.  That's what happens for
>>> vacated elected seats.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> David Singer
>>>> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
> 
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 3 November 2014 10:32:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:12 UTC