Re: Proposed Process Change Regarding TAG Participation Rules

Under current process, there is no difference in the constraints on
participation for TAB members who are appointed by the Director (vs
elected) - indeed, that would be a bit odd.

In my experience, to echo a comment I made during the AB's discussion of
this topic, true "votes" are rare.  If that is the concern, then I'd
suggest simply increasing the number of members of the TAG until 2 votes
from the same Member would not be of concern.

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:53 AM, 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?
>
> -----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.
>
>
>
>