- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:29:37 -0400
- To: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Monday, June 30, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Noah Mendelsohn wrote: > Again, I've been conflicted about this for many years. I am not saying that > on balance the policy is a good one. I do think it's important to note that > everyone has been well aware of the costs for quite a long time, and that > valued members have lost their seats before. As someone who also was forced to resign for the same ridiculous reason, can we please change this. The TAG is great, but it has nowhere near as much influence as the W3C clearly hoped it would when it was created. Historically, when TAG members did band together and behave in a collusive manner (as happened in the bad "semantic web" days, irrespective of company affiliation) the TAG was treated as irrelevant by most of the membership. The relevance of the TAG only extends to the work that the TAG does with the limited resources it has, and not by affiliation. The TAG can't force anyone to do anything - but can provide well reasoned and researched opinions that help shape the underlying platform (or influence the opinions of those who architecture it). This should be clear now, with the success the "reformed" TAG has had over the last 2 years. The TAG works well because of its small size and because people are committed to be dedicated to it - and because the work they are doing is relevant to the Web community at large. So lets allow people to serve out their full term, specially if they are motivated to do so. -- Marcos Caceres
Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 17:30:01 UTC