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

Re: Proposed Process Change Regarding TAG Participation Rules

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 19:40:53 +0000
Cc: "chaals@yandex-team.ru" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>, Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <DBC79EE5-E4EC-4F6B-924D-094B933AE2B2@apple.com>
To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>

On Nov 4, 2014, at 18:53 , Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:

> So what would the proposed change mean for a scenario under which an appointed TAG member changes jobs to be employed by a company that already supports an elected TAG member?  Does the elected member face re-election the next time around because of the appointment?  Is the Director compelled to appoint someone from another company at the beginning of the next TAG term?  Or are appointed members not subject to the participation rule?

My read of the process is that they are, and therefore the answer to your question is to take whatever action would happen instantaneously now, and move it ahead to the next appointment/election cycle. Appointments also happen on the same cycle (as we can see from previous election result announcements).

So today the state is that someone has to resign immediately; the proposal is that if not enough terms are expiring at the next election cycle, then someone has to resign.

At least, as I understand it.

The proposal, as I see it, has three advantages:
1) TAG work is presumably scheduled so that elections are natural break-points; this respects that and does not force resignations at other times.
2) Members of the TAG get to serve at least a year no matter what happens; we donít get disruptively short terms.
3) We donít have to hold special elections simply because of a change of affiliation (though of course the new employer might not support their employee spending time on the TAG, whereupon they will resign anyway and weíll have an election).



> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2014 10:24 AM
> To: chaals@yandex-team.ru
> Cc: Daniel Appelquist; public-w3process; Wayne Carr; Stephen Zilles; Brian Kardell
> Subject: Re: Proposed Process Change Regarding TAG Participation Rules
> 
> 
> On Nov 4, 2014, at 10:39 , chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
> 
>>>>> To my earlier point about appointed members, can we make a distinction between appointed and elected members (and assume that the Director can manage the potential conflicts of interest)? This could also help to manage the diversity issue I have brought up.
>>>> Let's chat about Tag membership.  I think we might have three kinds of members:
>>>> 
>>>> a) elected (the eTag)
>>>> b) appointed by the director (the aTag)
>>>> c) invited by the elected (+appointed?) delegates (the iTag)
>>>> 
>>>> If the elected members feel that they can handle an invited member from the same company as one of them, I think that's fine.
>> 
>> There are people who have a concern that electing lots of people who live in the same kind of environments and face the same kinds of issues and don't face or really understand issues that are relevant only in other parts of the world. Dan and others have clearly stated they are not people who have such a concern.
>> 
>> Being one of those people, I have a further concern that if the TAG becomes a group of like-mined individuals reinforced by people selected by those individuals, the problem is made worse.
>> 
>> The current setup allows anyone not elected to participate on an apparently equal footing. Letting the elected members give additional force to paticipants seems to me a very *bad* mechanism for building global trust.
> 
> The current setup doesn't even mention invited members, does it, so they are hardly on an equal footing. The TAG voting is clear also:
> 
> "When the TAG votes to resolve an issue, each TAG participant (whether appointed, elected, or the Chair) has one vote; see also the section on voting in the TAG charter[PUB25] and the general section on votes in this Process Document."
> 
> I am suggesting that if, in fact, we have a practice of having invited members on the TAG< we should make their status clear, both for their benefit ("I am a bona-fide invited member") and for ours ("but invited members do not vote", and so on).
> 
> I share your concerns that the TAG could become a self-serving bunch, but then we (are supposed to) do what we're doing today and re-elect more of the same bums, I mean, try to throw the bums out!
> 
> I would actually like the TAG to be stronger and more involved; I actually rather like striving towards some sense of architectural cohesion.
> 
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 
> 

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2014 19:41:34 UTC

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