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

On 12/11/2014 09:04 AM, Daniel Glazman wrote:
> On 10/12/14 20:09, David Singer wrote:
>
>> People are good but not perfect. In another context, I might think,
>> for example, I am sensitive to racism and sexism but I am also aware I
>> am, in fact, a white male. We seek diversity because of the
>> unconscious biases, the blind spots, lacunae, and so on. I think the
>> same is true here. It’s prudent.
>
> Sorry, I feel the argument of prudence is becoming a big burden at W3C.
>
> We are always so prudent we take years and sometimes decades to
> experiment, to implement changes. Nothing at W3C can happen in less
> than six months. It's also one of the reasons why we have the WHATWG
> around. Here, in the name of prudence, we are 'a priori' cautious of
> individuals instead of implementing a feedback loop that could detect
> such wrong behaviours and deal with them. We are so prudent we don't
> even trust the chairs of the TAG and AB to detect such wrong behaviours
> and take appropriate measures, including reporting to W3M for action.
>
> So sorry, I do NOT buy that prudence arguments for two committees that
> are advisory for the first one, and have the Director aboard for the
> second one.

I agree with Daniel.  In fact, I would go further.

Taking David's original example: is there anyone here would be opposed 
to instituting a rule that no more that 5 of the TAG participants be a 
white male?  After all, wouldn't it be prudent to institute such a rule?

But that's not the direction I would suggest that the W3C take further. 
  I still think that a better approach do diversity is to change the 
election system in ways that are currently being evaluated.  That plus 
the feedback look that Daniel is describing should be what is pursued.

> </Daniel>

- Sam Ruby

Received on Thursday, 11 December 2014 14:27:21 UTC