W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2014

Re: Is the TAG structure harmful? [Was: Fwd: Forced Resignation]

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:21:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iv+RUwrMy6CvNy0ZKNcKgFaVBqaYqc8kxRP-EFuOfsKxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
[Disclosure]: Ten years ago, I was a TBL appointee to the TAG and took a
job with Sun; there was another Sun employee already there (elected I
think), so I resigned.

I think that in the W3C affiliation matters by definition, and I think the
policy that limits members to one per employer is basically sensible.  I
could see an exception in the case where the membership elected two members
in full knowledge they share an employer.


On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Art,
>
>
> On 30/06/2014 16:50 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
>
>> [ Bcc public-w3process ]
>>
>> On the one hand, as long as some set of TAG participants are elected by
>> Members, I suspect some see (marginal?) value in limiting the number of
>> participants from an organization. OTOH, I think Consortium processes
>> actually retard the growth of the Web when those processes prohibit or
>> limit willing and capable people from directly contributing to Web
>> standards.
>>
>
> I won't deny that you bring up good points here, but I think it would be
> valuable to keep this discussion focused on this specific issue (though
> opening up other thread for the other issues is certainly an option).
>
> The rule in question is small and simple, and altering it in the Process
> is a rather straightforward, well-defined change. I think that it would be
> beneficial for the AB to get into the habit of making such small,
> well-defined changes to the Process on a regular basis (whenever required).
>
> The alternative is the sort of paralysis incurred by boiling the ocean.
> Again, I don't dispute the validity of your other points, but if this turns
> into a "Hey, let's fix the TAG!" project we won't see a change for 2-5
> years.
>
> A well-functioning organisation should be able to go through those steps
> in under two months (mostly accounting for a 4 week voting period):
>
>   1. Hey look, we have a problem with losing the very scarce resource of
> quality contributors; happened twice in two years (and has happened before,
> e.g Norm).
>   2. Here is a five-line change to the Process document to fix the issue
> (presumably from the AB or the Process CG).
>   3. AC votes to accept or reject after a discussion period. The WBS poll
> can include the option to apply the change to the current roster.
>   4. On to next issue!
>
> This would allow you to take up your other change proposals on similar
> grounds (though I understand that switching the organisation could make
> this change moot).
>
> I would contend that an organisation that can't fix a well-defined,
> well-scoped, small problem (or conversely decide that it isn't a problem
> and refuse the fix) inside of two months is dysfunctional.
>
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>
>


-- 
- Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
https://keybase.io/timbray)
Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 16:21:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:44:31 UTC