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

I am also strongly in favor of the change. It's a small but reasonable step.

Frankly I'm inclined to remove the restriction entirely, I don't see it helping anything. 

Firstly, TAG members are not representing their organization, but instead are supposed to be working for the benefit of the web in general. If they are doing that, it doesn't matter who they work for. If they're working in the interest of their employer first, they shouldn't be on the TAG, even if they're the only one from their organization.

Secondly, there's nothing preventing multiple TAG members from colluding or conspiring to achieve a goal, even when they have different employers. (And frankly, in other working groups I don't see multiple people working for the same organization as a strong indication that they agree on issues.)

Thirdly, there's already a process in place to remove TAG members who are not acting in good faith, it's called an election. If the AC isn't happy with the behavior of one or more TAG members, then don't re-elect them. If need be, we could add a recall mechanism to the process to be able to remove TAG members before their term expires.

Peter

On Dec 9, 2014, at 1:37 PM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 
>