- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:40:51 +0200
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
On 13/04/15 17:36, David Singer wrote: > What we wanted was that if someone changed allegiance, we (a) did not force a special election but (b) any >1 seat count for their employer would last no longer than until the next election. How the company resolves this — resignation, who resigns, when, term endings, etc. — is up to them. "we"? Who's that "we"? Not me. Speak for yourself, Dave. It was never my goal and I think I'm the one who originally started all this discussion on the election after Alex's issue. My goal is to avoid a forced resignation, that I find a scandal and have always found a scandal. Read it again: a scandal. The prose says the issue should be solved before the election. So the only way to do that is to make the extra seat's holder resign. *EXACTLY* the original issue, the original complaint from Alex, my original followup. It's totally abnormal to force a resignation from someone who was elected, and it's a negation of ACs' sovereign vote. The Member company that acquired the extra seat holder's employer will force that individual to resign. Which is completely silly BECAUSE IF THE INDIVIDUAL LEAVES THE COMPANY, HE/SHE CAN RETAIN THE SEAT BEING UNAFFILIATED! Even worse, an extra seat's holder leaving the company, but contracting for that company, will retain the seat... Ooops. I'll do my best to block the current proposed prose, at all decision levels. It's severely suboptimal, ambiguous process-wise, and does not solve the original issue. > That’s the theory, and I encourage you to read the previous comments to understand the concerns about this in practice. Well I think it should be the practice. So if it's really only the theory, there's still a lot of work on the radar. </Daniel>
Received on Monday, 13 April 2015 16:41:15 UTC