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: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:59:35 -0800
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <1227951B-163E-4E3A-ACC2-5C129E118E55@apple.com>
To: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>

> On Dec 11, 2014, at 8:51 , Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

I agree that the TAG has no power.  I really wish they had more influence and effect though.  An (even) more active TAG would be great, IMHO.

Am I assuming that the ‘can live with it’ people would also prefer this over doing nothing at all.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 11 December 2014 18:00:11 UTC

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