- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:29:29 +0200
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
On 13/04/15 00:43, Stephen Zilles wrote:
> The first version (that which is now in the Draft Process 2015 document)
>
> “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 completion of the next
> regularly scheduled election for the TAG, the Member organization must
> have returned to having at most one participant.”
I also have concerns about this, but for reasons I think are entirely
different from the one behind Chaals' objection.
1. the last sentence is unclear. I could understand the intent if it
meant "the next election for the extra seat under consideration" but
if that's really any election, it means we're back to the previous
situation where a TAG member has to resign at some point to comply
with rules we found counter-productive and over-rigid enough to
update them. In short, this does not solve the issue.
2. this does not change the center of gravity of the TAG. The TAG is
a group of individuals that we all value for their expertise, not
a group of employees of their employers. As a matter of fact, they
remain on the TAG if they become unaffiliated...
Sorry if my comments above arrive late, I was burried under work and
then sick.
</Daniel>
Received on Monday, 13 April 2015 12:29:54 UTC