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

RE: ISSUE-133 - TAG role / makeup

From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 22:38:05 +0000
To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com>, "chaals@yandex-team.ru" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
CC: Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BN1PR0201MB0802E25BC0E443172468E43DAE180@BN1PR0201MB0802.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)
> To: David Singer; chaals@yandex-team.ru
> Cc: Revising W3C Process Community Group
 
> > Overall, I think I need motivations rather than, or at least as well as,
> solutions!
> 
> +1 .  I'm not clear on what problem this issue identifies, thus it's hard to
> evaluate the solutions being discussed.
[SZ] +1, also. It seems that we should begin by identifying problems with the current TAG structure and then design solutions. I agree with Mike's comments below and would add that I now wonder why the TAG is an elected body at all. (Something that Art Barstow also questioned in his response.) I helped write the original TAG process and can think of two reasons why the TAG was elected: (1) to help insure that the people who are elected feel an obligation to actually do something (versus just joining a body) and (2) because this was, in some ways, a split off of obligations that the original AB might have had, copying (more or less) the formation mechanism of the AB. 

There are other mechanisms by which the TAG might be constituted. For example, as I understand it, the IETF has a Nominating Committee that examines the qualifications of prospect candidates for open positions, including the Internet Architecture Board. The Nominating Committee itself is chosen by an arcane mechanism (each year ten people are randomly selected from among eligible volunteers -- RFC 3797). Such a mechanism might be used to allow "any qualified individual" to join an Architecture Working Group (after committing to "work" in the group). If the Working Group became too large, then it might sub-divide its tasks and meet only occasionally in plenary session. If this approach were used, then all the rule changes proposed would be moot. So, what, exactly, is the problem to be solved?
> 
> I'd be inclined to close the issue without action and revisit it later.  There's an
> experiment underway to evaluate whether Schulze STV would significantly
> change the makeup of the TAG and AB, so let's see what data that generates
> before making more voting changes.  Likewise there's a proposed revision to
> the Process Document being reviewed by the AC that addresses the problem
> of TAG members being forced to immediately resign because they find
> themselves working for the same company.  Let's see what the AC thinks
> about that before proposing more changes.
> 
> I am very interested in discussing the role of the TAG going forward.  For
> example, there is an AB discussion about how to handle formal objections in a
> world where Director has less time available to devote to W3C; one plausible
> way to do that would be to give the TAG (or another group primarily selected
> for their technical credentials) a role in resolving FOs. We should figure out
> what role we expect the TAG to play before worrying about how to select the
> people most suited to that role.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 1:16 PM
> To: chaals@yandex-team.ru
> Cc: Revising W3C Process Community Group
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-133 - TAG role / makeup
> 
> Some quick reactions.  Overall, I think I need motivations rather than, or at
> least as well as, solutions!
> 
> 
> > On Mar 9, 2015, at 22:57 , chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > <https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/133>
> >
> > We have made a change to this in the draft Process 2015, loosening the
> constraint for people who are hired by a company that already has a member.
> >
> > I propose a rather more substantial set of changes:
> >
> > - TAG has 12 members, including TimBL, 3 nominated by the Director, 9
> elected by the membership.
> 
> 12 seems awfully large.  That is the maximum I see recommended for some
> boards.  Why so large?
> 
> > - The chair(s) must be chosen from among TAG members, by the Director.
> 
> Not true today?
> 
> > - The TAG are elected by "Schulze-STV" (rather than the current system), 4
> or 5 per year like the AB.
> 
> You mean, as I also suggest for the AB?
> 
> > - Any number of employees of a member can be nominated, however only
> the one who is most preferred can take a seat. The others will be eliminated
> with the seats going to the next-most preferred candidate(s).
> 
> OK, this is a change we could make at any time.  Why is it goodness to
> nominate more than one, of whom only one can be elected?
> 
> > - A W3C member who employs a member of the TAG *must not* nominate
> another person for election.
> 
> OK, this is a little odd.  You mean, nominate from their own employees (I
> assume I could always nominate Chaals as long as he doesn’t work for me)? As
> others note, this needs to say “employs a member of the upcoming TAG (that
> TAG that is to come after the election)”.
> 
> > - TAG members participate as representatives of their employer, for Patent
> Policy purposes. The Process already says this, but the current TAG charter
> which cannot override Process gives a different impression - this is affirming
> that the charter should be changed.
> 
> I think the confusion over the TAG comes not from when the TAG writes a
> document based on Contributions from its Members, but when they review
> documents from other WGs.  I hope that the old and new processes are quite
> clear about TAG products and Contributions.
> 
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Chaals
> >
> > --
> > Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> > chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

> >
> 
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 

Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2015 22:38:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 10 March 2015 22:38:34 UTC