W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > April 2015

Re: Suggested response to the Yandex "cannot iive with loosening of TAG participation requiremens"

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 21:36:25 +0200
To: public-w3process@w3.org
message-id: <552C1AB9.5030002@disruptive-innovations.com>
On 13/04/15 19:51, Stephen Zilles wrote:

>> "we"? Who's that "we"? Not me.
> [SZ] I believe the "we" was the majority position in the discussion of this issue last fall. The position that led to a Call for Consensus on the text that is in the current Process 2015 Draft.

Fair enough. But I still don't recognize my opinion in that
consensus.

> [SZ] I am confused by your reading of the prose, assuming that you mean the text of the proposed change to TAG participation. That text says, " At the completion of the next regularly scheduled election for the TAG" not prior to it. That was done to allow flexibility in the way a conflict (more than one participant from a single organization) was handled and to allow all participants to complete at least a year of their term.

I stand corrected.

BUT the prose says the "the next regularly scheduled election". So
in theory, an elected member of the TAG for a two years mandate could
see its seat automatically renewed after only one year. I don't see this
as normal and respecting ACs' vote.

> [SZ] Your "Ooops" is valid, but the situation is not as clear as you indicate. Section 2.5.2 of the Process, second paragraph, says, " Each Member (or group of related Members) may nominate one individual. And, Section 2.1.2. item number 3., says, " two Members are related if, [...]The Members have an employment contract or consulting contract that affects W3C participation." So it would not seem to be possible for the contracting company to nominate a contractor if they had a participant. This is an area where some clean-up might be useful.

Let's list the ambiguities then: an individual may be nominated by a
Member, without being employed by any Member, contracting
for them at date D. Elected. A year later, next election, that
individual is not contracting for them any more and the Member may wish
to nominate an employee. Refused?

An individual may be nominated by a Member, without being employed by
any Member, and NOT contracting for them (I think Domenic employee of
Lab49 and nominated by jQuery Foundation was in that case). Suppose
that Member already has a TAG seat. Refused? If not and if the
individual is elected but then starts some contracting for the Member,
refused? So a a Web specialist doing service for living and elected to
the TAG should refuse all contracts with all other TAG Members? That
would shut down a very large part of his market, right?

There are too many holes in the "representation capacity" of 3.1.2
for this election format, and vice-versa.

> [SZ] I am not sure what you mean by this statement. One of the two proposed texts MUST be in the document. The issue is choosing between them. There is the text that is in Process 2014 which seems to be much further from your desired text and the proposed change which is nearer to your desired goal, but still lacking from your perspective. For Process 2015, those are the choices. It is, of course, possible to re-open a new issue for Process 2016 that would have different text.

I agree the proposed text is nearer to my expectation. But it's still a
suboptimal solution. I want to avoid anything suboptimal in the Process.

FWIW, Brian Kardell said:

> If there are people who get elected to TAG and switch employers after
> some time, we should let them finish the term they were elected to
> IMO.  I don't see anything in this which personally causes me to
> question the institution - it seems like it will mostly take care of
> itself if you have reasonable constraints on the elections themselves.

I could not agree more. Simpler, clearer, cleaner, unambiguous.

</Daniel>
Received on Monday, 13 April 2015 19:36:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 19:36:49 UTC