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: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 08:51:48 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJK2wqV8a_Q+J+5KaWnvpfkPhWjPpMQ0P9oeEFnWKvwN19xWfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
I was going to say "I think my preference for more is well-documented," but
then realized much of that opposition was in AB conversations, not here.

I am definitely supportive of the proposed change, and would prefer more
(but feel at least this is a step in the right direction).

To expound more publicly - like Daniel, I am frustrated by the "prudence"
here.  I do not feel like the TAG has sufficient power in controlling the
direction of the web to be attractive enough for a (presumably
ill-intentioned) vendor to attempt to "buy up votes"; I also find it
personally a bit offensive that people seem to think candidates would be
worthy of election but not to be trusted to not change their opinions or
perspective due to an employment change.  I believe we have to trust the AC
membership to elect a representatively-broad set of members (or believe
that Tim would use his appointments to balance out the membership).
Personally, I would support abolishing the membership restrictions on the
TAG (not the AB, necessarily).  An elected cabal is hardly a cabal.

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On 12/11/2014 11:36 AM, David Singer wrote:
>>  On Dec 11, 2014, at 5:31 , JC Verdié <jicheu@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>>> It looks to me like there’s more than 1 people supporting the proposed
>>> change, but there’s so much noise that it’s hard to tell if the others
>>> “don’t care”, “can live with or without” or are strongly opposed.
>> I *think* we have
>> * support from a plurality (a conveniently vague word, as I am unsure how
>> many, but it’s more than one)
>> * opposition from Chaals (details coming, I understand; I think he
>> prefers the status quo)
>> * and I think we have “would prefer more but can live with it” from a
>> plurality, but I am not sure.  Pretty sure that this is Dan’s position, not
>> so sure about Sam and Daniel.
> Count me in the “would prefer more but can live with it” category.
> - Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 11 December 2014 16:52:15 UTC

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