Re: A proposal for revising the rules on TAG Participation

FWIW, and having been subjected to a similar situation being dropped as
chair of a WG long ago in a galaxy far, far away, because of an affiliation
change; I think that this (keep limit to one and allow up to two until the
next election) is what I would think the right solution.

Thanks, Noah, for putting this thoughtful proposal together.

Cheers

Christopher Ferris
IBM Distinguished Engineer
CTO Cloud Interoperability
@christo4ferris
508-667-0402
http://thoughtsoncloud.com/author/cferris/

> On Jul 11, 2014, at 9:44 PM, "Noah Mendelsohn" <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
wrote:
>
> Note also that there is an obvious way of splitting my proposal, I.e. to
> stick with the limit of one, but to allow up to two until the next
election
> when affiliation changes cause trouble.
>
> FWIW, I agree with Domenic: if the AC chooses up to two I think that's
OK.
> I'm pretty sure that the conflict that got me seated involved Tim Bray
and
> Norm Walsh, who wound up at Sun after some change of affiliation. I can't
> think of two TAG members who would have brought more value serving
together
> than Tim and Norm, and I know that neither would have put his Sun
> affiliation ahead of the needs of the community. Grateful as I was for
the
> opportunity to serve, Tim Bray was a significant loss for the TAG IMO.
>
> Noah
>
> On 7/11/2014 9:07 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> > From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> >
> >> After careful consideration, I would personally be opposed to Google,
having two seats on the TAG.
> >
> > This seems fine to me: I myself am not sure I would vote for two people
from the same company, given the opportunity. What I wonder is whether we
should allow your personal opposition to prevent others in the AC from
expressing their preferences.
> >
> > Let's say that the AC elected two Googlers to the TAG, fully knowing
their affiliations ahead of time. Presumably, those whose personal
preference was toward having two Googlers outvoted those who were
personally opposed. But you are saying that those supporting the outcome of
the vote should be overruled, in favor of the opposition?
> >
> > (Changing affiliations makes this into a different question, but you
are -1ing even the aspect of the proposal which allows two same-affiliation
members to be elected, and not just the part that makes affiliation changes
less traumatic.)
> >
> > In summary: It's important to recognize that supporting Noah's revision
is *not* the same as supporting two Googlers (or two Mozillans, or
whichever) on the TAG. It is supporting *the ability for the AC to choose
to elect two same-affiliation candidates to the TAG*. These are very
different things. The power is still with the AC to elect whoever they
choose; this simply removes restrictions that currently make some choices
invalid.
> >
>