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

Re: Proposed Process Change Regarding TAG Participation Rules

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 04:53:18 -0800
Message-ID: <CADC=+jetvug+uiz=5pN-iOCGxUYyckk6=M+dF4qdgNYtGkcTzg@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>, Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
On Nov 3, 2014 5:40 AM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 3, 2014, at 10:32 , Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> 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> 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.
>
> I don’t agree.  Not havign special elections mid-term makes sense, and it
makes even less sense when the next regular election is ‘soon’.  Having
multiple participants from the same member for more than a year (which is
what you are suggesting) is too long, IMHO.
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>

I think as David is suggesting, as of now this would guarantee at least 1
year on TAG, right?
Received on Monday, 3 November 2014 12:53:45 UTC

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