W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2014

Re: ACTION REQUIRED: Call for Consensus: Proposed Process Change Regarding TAG Participation Rules; Respond by December 8, 2014

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 13:37:22 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJK2wqWn8SAMVvwuLWn6kHKjyfHGJ36r+1vG8a2hUPVzftQ_iA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Chaals from Yandex <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Sorry, this got lost in the email storm of being sent out the Monday of
Thanksgiving week.  I would have explicitly agreed with the change.

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <
Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:

> > Charles - can you be specific about what you don’t agree with?
>
> We discussed this on the CG call this morning, with the conclusion that
> Chaals has repeatedly stated that he doesn't want more than one TAG or AB
> seat to be occupied by employees of a single member, so his position seems
> be in favor of the status quo.
>
> We also noted that even though many believed there was a consensus in
> favor of the proposed compromise (allow an "extra" person from a member
> until the next election is over) in fact only one person supported that in
> the CfC.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 12:42 PM
> To: Chaals from Yandex
> Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ACTION REQUIRED: Call for Consensus: Proposed Process Change
> Regarding TAG Participation Rules; Respond by December 8, 2014
>
>
> > On Dec 9, 2014, at 0:33 , Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Charles - can you be specific about what you don’t agree with? I feel
> like this reflects the consensus of many conversations that have been held
> before, during and after TPAC, so I have to express some confusion here.
> >
>
> yes, we need something to go with.  You like the status quo?  You want to
> go further?  See an issue that you’d like resolved?
>
> > Also, are you not happy as in “can’t live with it” or can you live with
> it as written but would prefer a change to the proposal, and if so what is
> that proposed change?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dan
> >
> >> On 9 Dec 2014, at 04:30, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry, but I actually do not agree with the proposal.
> >>
> >> (I thought I had sent this already, but don't see it in the archive so
> sending it again to be sure).
> >>
> >> cheers
> >>
> >> 08.12.2014, 09:25, "Natasha Rooney" <nrooney@gsma.com>:
> >>> I agree!
> >>>
> >>> Natasha Rooney | Web Technologist | GSMA | nrooney@gsma.com | +44
> >>> (0) 7730 219 765 | @thisNatasha | Skype: nrooney@gsm.org
> >>>
> >>> Tokyo, Japan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Resent-From: public-w3process@w3.org
> >>>> From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
> >>>> Date: 25 November 2014 04:11:09 GMT
> >>>> To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
> >>>> Subject: ACTION REQUIRED: Call for Consensus: Proposed Process
> >>>> Change  Regarding TAG Participation Rules; Respond by December 8,
> >>>> 2014 This is a Call for Consensus to update the Process 2015 Draft
> >>>> with a change to the first bullet of Section 2.5.1 Advisory Board
> >>>> and Technical Architecture Group Participation Constraints of
> >>>> August 1, 2014 Process Document. Responses to this call are due by
> >>>> Close of Business on 8 December 2014 (two weeks). Please send a
> >>>> reply to this message (I agree, I disagree, I abstain) to register
> >>>> your opinion. The CG rules do NOT assume that a lack of reply is
> >>>> agreement with the proposal. (See
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jun/0160.h
> >>>> tml
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jun/0163.h
> >>>> tml )
> >>>>
> >>>> If you wish to discuss the proposed change, please create a new
> thread for that discussion (so that “votes” are easily separated from
> “discussion”).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The proposed change:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The existing Process 2014 text is:
> >>>>
> >>>> “A Member organization is permitted at most one participant on the
> TAG.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The proposed replacement text is:
> >>>>
> >>>> “A Member organization is permitted at most one participant on the
> TAG, except when having more than one participant is caused by a change of
> affiliation of an existing participant. At the completion of the next
> regularly scheduled election for the TAG, the Member organization MUST have
> returned to having at most one participant.”
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This text tries to be a clear as possible about what the requirement
> on participation is, “At most one”, without constraining how an Member
> organization reaches that state.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> FAQ
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 1.      Does this also require modifications to paragraph 2 of
> section 2.5.1 and possibly to paragraph 2 of 2.5.3?"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Changes are not required to either of the above paragraphs.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Paragraph 2 of section 2.5.1 begins, " If, for whatever reason, these
> constraints are not satisfied" this is a conditional that refers to the
> rules the proposed replacement text changes below. Since the constraint is
> changed to allow multiple participants, the constraint would be satisfied
> (up to the next regularly scheduled election). That means that the rest of
> the paragraph does not apply (and need not change).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Paragraph 2 of 2.5.3 begins, " When an Advisory Board or TAG
> participant changes affiliations, as long as Advisory Board and TAG
> participation constraints are respected," Again, the changed participation
> constraints are satisfied up to the next regularly scheduled election and
> the rest of the paragraph does not apply so no change is necessary.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2.      Does this change allow an organization to nominate two
> candidates (or one, if they already have a person serving whose term will
> not expire) at any scheduled election with the idea that if both are
> elected, then both can serve till the next scheduled election?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No, When any election completes an organization MUST have “at most
> one participant”. If there is the possibility of two persons from the same
> organization being elected, that statement would be invalidated so
> nominating candidates that could invalidate the restriction is not to be
> allowed.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 3.      Is “next regularly scheduled election” well-enough defined in
> the Process Document?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, section 2.4.1 Technical Architecture Group Participation says,
> “Regular TAG terms begin on 1 February and end on 31 January.” and that
> terms are for two years and are staggered. Section 2.5.2 Advisory Board and
> Techincal Architecture Group Elections says, “An election begins when the
> Team sends a Call for Nominations to the Advisory Committee.” Since the
> nominations must precede the elections and elections must precede the
> beginning of terms, this (implicitly) specifies when the next regularly
> scheduled elections take place.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Steve Zilles
> >>>>
> >>> This electronic message contains information from Telefonica UK or
> >>> Telefonica Europe which may be privileged or confidential. The
> information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity
> named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any
> disclosure, copying distribution or use of the contents of this information
> is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error,
> please notify us by telephone or email. Switchboard: +44 (0)113 272 2000
> Email: feedback@o2.com Telefonica UK Limited 260 Bath Road, Slough,
> Berkshire SL1 4DX Registered in England and Wales: 1743099. VAT number: GB
> 778 6037 85 Telefonica Europe plc 260 Bath Road, Slough, Berkshire SL1 4DX
> Registered in England and Wales: 05310128. VAT number: GB 778 6037 85
> Telefonica Digital Limited 260 Bath Road, Slough, Berkshire SL1 4DX
> Registered in England and Wales: 7884976. VAT number: GB 778 6037 85 This
> email and its attachments are intended for the above named only and may be
> confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no action
> based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please reply to
> this email or call +44 207 356 0600 and highlight the error.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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, 9 December 2014 21:37:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:25 UTC