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

Results: Call for Consensus: Proposed Process Change Regarding TAG Participation Rules

From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 01:56:53 +0000
To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BN1PR0201MB080275A8DC5507139CC7373DAE600@BN1PR0201MB0802.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
I have the following "votes" cast for the proposal:

I am strongly in favor.


- My non-vote so far means that I concur with whatever consensus there is. I can live with either the status quo or the proposed compromise.
Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) Michael.Champion@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>


Count me in the "would prefer more but can live with it" category.

- Sam Ruby


On 11/12/14 17:43, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Count me in the "would prefer more but can live with it" category.

Me too. A step in the right direction but we can - and IMHO should -

do more and better.



I agree with the proposed change.

Dan Appelquist


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 am strongly *against* any change that would allow, on a permanent basis, many people from the same company. For the simple reason that even if we elect individuals and not corporations, I do not live in Candyland, and sadly, because of this, I have to take measures and act accordingly.

JC Verdie


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

Peter Linss


I think I lean towards supporting the proposed change, although I

was more comfortable with the variant that circulated at one point

that had a maximum of two participants per member, even between


L. David Baron


> 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.

I thought I did and someone else, so if my response got lost, I apologize.

David Singer


I would have explicitly agreed with the change.

Chris Wilson


I agree!

Natasha Rooney


I disagree. (I'll start a separate thread to explain why).

Chaals MCN

So!! To summarize

1.  There seem to be 11 people who can live with the proposed change, and of these, 6 seem to actually support the proposal (the others can live with it).

2.  There is one objection.

3.  The Revising the Process Document CG has about 37 members so this is not a majority, but it is a strong plurality.

4.  People seem to have trouble following directions which asked for responses of the form "I agree" or "I disagree" (and should have asked for "I can live with it". They also asked that any discussion be moved to another thread (which did not happen). This made counting "votes" a difficult to impossible task.

So, by the rules of the CG [1] I do not believe I can declare Consensus, but I also believe that not doing so would be a frustration of the opinions expressed. I note that this vote is advisory, whether the suggested text should be placed in the next draft of the Process2015 document which is still to be reviewed by and commented on by the AB and AC. Given the AB has already endorsed this edit, I believe it should go into the next Process2015 draft.

Steve Zilles
Chair, Process Document Task Force
Received on Friday, 12 December 2014 01:57:27 UTC

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