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

FW: Proposed Process Change Regarding TAG Participation Rules

From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 02:18:50 +0000
To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
CC: "ab@w3.org" <ab@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6340a0297ab345668838e1f84611cfed@BN1PR02MB183.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
In a separate message to Dan Appelquist and David Singer, I volunteered to issue a CfC to resolve the simple issue of not vacating seats on the Tag until the next regularly scheduled election. I proposed text (see below) to make this change.  I am distributing their comments (to me) because Mike Champion noted we should have concrete text to consider.

On Nov 4, 2014, at 17:28 , Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote:

> Dan (and David),
> I am willing to issue the CfC to the Process CG provided that it includes actual text for the change to be made to the process document.
> I suggest a change to the first bullet of Section 2.5.1 Advisory Board 
> and Technical Architecture Group Participation Constraints Process 2014 text:
> "A Member organization is permitted at most one participant on the TAG.
> Proposed replacement text:
> "A Member organization is permitted at most one participant on the TAG, except when having more than one participant is caused by a change of affiliation of an existing participant. At the next regularly scheduled election for the TAG, the Member organization MUST return to having at most one participant."
> I have tried to be a clear as possible about what the requirement on participation is, "At most one", without constraining how an Member organization reaches that state.
> Steve Z
Dan replied (to me):
"Thank you for taking the time to make this proposal. This looks good to me. I support your proposed wording. 
However I think this will also require a modifications to paragraph 2 of section 2.5.1 and possibly to paragraph 2 of 2.5.3?"

I believe that not changes is required to either of the above paragraphs.

Paragraph 2 of section 2.5.1 begins, " If, for whatever reason, these constraints are not satisfied" this is a conditional that refers to the rules the proposed replacement text changes below. Since the constraint is changed to allow multiple participants, the constraint would be satisfied (up to the next regularly scheduled election). That means that the rest of the paragraph does not apply (and need not change).

Paragraph 2 of 2.5.3 begins, " When an Advisory Board or TAG participant changes affiliations, as long as Advisory Board and TAG participation constraints are respected," Again, the changed participation constraints are satisfied up to the next regularly scheduled election and the rest of the paragraph does not apply so no change is necessary.

[and David also replied:]
From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 9:49 AM
To: Stephen Zilles
Cc: Daniel Appelquist (appelquist@gmail.com)
Subject: Re: Proposed Process Change Regarding TAG Participation Rules

This seems good. I think we may need to say more: that the candidate list for an election cannot include candidates who, if elected, would cause this rule to be violated (this therefore limits to 1 the number of candidates from organizations with no member in the next period, and 0 for those with a member, as well as insisting on resignations from N-1 of the existing members).  This stops a member from saying "I will only have to resign if Fred gets re-elected", because if they then resign, we have to have a special election, which is exactly what we're trying to avoid.
I think the answer to this question is that Fred could run but could not be "elected" unless the existing participant from Fred's organization had resigned prior to the election being announced. If not, Fred would not be eligible to be elected and his votes should not be counted. Note that this (potential) problem exists with the current Process Document text and seems to be covered by the constraint as currently stated and the proposed replacement. The point being one cannot become a Tag participant if one's organization already has a participant. The exception only applies to existing Tag participants. You might argue with the analysis, but I favor simpler rules over trying to cover every edge case.

Whether we need a note afterwards saying that the regularization might happen by virtue of expiring terms, or resignations, or a combination, I don't know.
The Process Document describes the action the TAG Chair needs to take if the organization in question does not self-solve the problem. This seems to be adequate.  I do not favor over-specifying how this should or could be done. 

Is it clear that regularly scheduled elections are annual, i.e. is this a Defined Term?
"next regularly scheduled election" is a Used Term (in section 2.5.1 at least) in the current Process Document. Section 2.4.1 defines the terms and election dates for the TAG. This seems sufficient, but a link from "next regularly scheduled election" to 2.4.1 could be used for all occurrences.

Steve Zilles
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2014 02:19:24 UTC

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