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

RE: An update on Suggested response to the Yandex "cannot iive with loosening of TAG participation requiremens"

From: Josh Soref <jsoref@blackberry.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 17:24:44 +0000
To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <957F1ECDA90E004B8DBDE23CFC94E3A3D2D0F6E9@XMB111CNC.rim.net>
(note: the subject has misspelled "live" and "requirements")

Fwiw, this can technically happen when one Member buys another Member, in
addition to a Member hiring a rep from another Member.

(This happens, I've worked at companies which have done this. Although they
didn't have TAG/AB seats...)

Wayne wrote:
> Possible wording for poll -- I wouldn't include historical background --
just the
> poll.  It's already long.
> 
> [[
> When due to change in affiliation, a W3C Member has more than 1 employee
> on either the TAG or AB or has a single employee on both the TAG and AB,

There should be some way to write this that's clearer, although I give up
thinking about how.

> the current Process constraints require ceasing work immediately

Require {reps to cease work} immediately

> that violates the participation constraint. 

When they are violating ...

> There are a number of alternatives that have been proposed changing that
rule.
> 
> Option 1.  constraint on participation is violated due to change in
affiliation,
> one person stops work immediately and vacate the seat within 30 days (a
> special election is not required, but the Chair can ask for it).  This is
the
> current Process.
> 
> "If, for whatever reason, these constraints are not satisfied (e.g.,
because a
> TAG or AB participant changes jobs), one participant MUST cease TAG or AB
> participation until the situation has been resolved. If after 30 days the
> situation has not been resolved, the Chair will declare one participant's
seat to
> be vacant." (current Process 2.5.1)
> 
> "When an Advisory Board or TAG participant changes affiliations, as long
as
> Advisory Board and TAG participation constraints are respected, the
individual
> MAY continue to participate until the next regularly scheduled election
for
> that group. Otherwise, the seat is vacated." (current Process 2.5.3)
> 
> 1) favor that as the policy;
> 2) fine, don't care;
> 3) don't like it but can live with it;
> 4) do not want it.
> 
> Option 2. constraint on participation is violated due to change in
affilation, this
> is allowed until the next election.  This is the proposal in the proposed
> Process.
> 
> "If, for whatever reason, these constraints are not satisfied (e.g.,
because an
> AB participant changes jobs), one participant must cease AB participation
until
> the situation has been resolved. If after 30 days the situation has not
been
> resolved, the Chair will declare one participant's seat to be vacant."
(proposed
> Process 2.5.1, 3 March 2015 Editor's Draft)  -- this is an error - assume
for this
> poll it is consistent with the next quote.

What happens when there's one Member rep on AB and one Member rep on TAG
(for the same Member, thus violating the constraint),
there are two chairs, which chair declares?

> "When an Advisory Board or TAG participant changes affiliations, as long
as
> Advisory Board and TAG participation constraints are respected, the
individual
> may continue to participate until the next regularly scheduled election
for
> that group. Otherwise, the seat is vacated." (proposed Process 2.5.3, 3
March
> 2015 Editor's Draft)  -- there is an error here too - the idea is they
don't have
> to leave until the next election.
> 
> 1) favor that as the policy;
> 2) fine, don't care;
> 3) don't like it but can live with it;
> 4) do not want it.
> 
> Option 3) constraint on participation is violated, this is allowed until
the term
> expires (so not the next election if not up for re-election until the term
after
> that).
> 
> 1) favor that as the policy;
> 2) fine, don't care;
> 3) don't like it but can live with it;
> 4) do not want it.
> 
> 
> Option 4) constraint on participation is violated -- remove the
constraints and
> allow Member to have more than one employee in either group and allow the
> same person in both groups.
> 
> 1) favor that as the policy;
> 2) fine, don't care;
> 3) don't like it but can live with it;
> 4) do not want it.
> 
> ]]
> 
> 
> On 2015-04-14 15:32, Stephen Zilles wrote:
> 
> 
> 	All,
> 
> 	The discussion that has been going on is interesting but ti is not
to the
> point of the "Suggested Response"
> 
> 
> 
> 	Procedurally, Process 2015 is in "Public Beta"; that is, we have a
> document; we are not adding new functionality; we are fixing those bugs
that
> are necessary to fix to be able to ship the document. That means, for
Process
> 2015, we are not re-opening the debate on the best solution for TAG
> participation (because that would be new functionality). Such debate is
> entirely appropriate for Process 2016 or beyond, but we are not there yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 	We have done a "Last Call" on a Draft Process 2015 Document. That
> "Last Call" had revised text for TAG participation.
> 
> 
> 
> 	The "revised text" was prepared to solve a problem that required the
> resignation of one TAG member when a TAG member joined an organization
> that already had a TAG member. This text was a compromise between the
> current rule that says a given organization can never have to participants
on
> the TAG  and a potential rule that says once an individual is elected he
may
> serve the rest of his/her two year term, even if he/she joins an
organization
> with an existing TAG participant. This text passed a Call for Consensus in
> December, but not without dissent from both more extreme positions.
> 
> 
> 
> 	The next step is to respond to comments on that "Last Call" document
> and ask the Advisory Board to send an edited version for a final AC Review
> prior to the May AC meeting. The Advisory Board has the responsibility
> (according to the Process) of deciding what (if anything) to forward to an
AC
> Review.
> 
> 
> 
> 	Responding to comments and "fixing the bugs" means resolving issues
> identified in the draft document or, when there is no simple change,
> postponing resolution until a future draft of the Process.
> 
> 
> 
> 	The point at issue for Process 2015 with respect to TAG
participation
> is what do we send to the AC for a final AC Review. There are two choices:
> 
> 	1.      The original text that is in Process 2014, or
> 
> 	2.      The revised text that is currently in the Draft Process 2015
> document
> 
> 
> 
> 	At least one reviewer (of the "Last Call" document) has indicated
that
> his organization cannot live with the revised text. This reviewer was
asked if
> there was a way, other than restructuring the TAG, that would resolve his
> concerns. He indicated that from his viewpoint there was no such way.
> 
> 
> 
> 	So, with respect to the TAG participation issue, there does not seem
> to be a simple change that fixes the problem. Recognizing that there was
> dissent on the revised text,  two strategies have been suggested:
> 
> 	1.      Simply send the Process 2015 draft (with the revised text
for
> TAG participation, but with other bugs fixed) to the AC. If there are any
formal
> objections then they will be handled as usual by the Director.
> 
> 	2.      Send the Process 2015 draft (with the revised text for TAG
> participation, but with other bugs fixed) to the AC, but include in the
Review
> Ballot a separate ballot on the alternatives (the Process 2014 text and
the
> revised text for TAG participation) that the Reviewer can separately
approve,
> live-with or disapprove. Then, choose the alternative with the fewest
> objections and most support.
> 
> 
> 
> 	Deciding between these two or some other approach is up to the
> Advisory Board; it is not the role of the Task Force or the CG. We develop
> recommendations (if there is consensus to do so).
> 
> 
> 
> 	Note, that the Process does not really define rules for choosing the
> alternative with the fewest objections and the most support. Section 3.3
> Consensus of the Process Document says, "Where unanimity is not possible,
a
> group should strive to make consensus decisions where there is significant
> support and few abstentions." This lack of a clear process could lead to
> contention on evaluating the results of such a ballot with alternatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 	Resolving this issue for Process 2015, at its current state, does
not
> mean that a more comprehensive discussion cannot take place in the future.
> The time is NOT now, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 	Steve Zilles
> 
> 	Chair, Process Document Task Force
> 



Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2015 17:25:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 15 April 2015 17:25:14 UTC