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: <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:24:38 +0300
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-Id: <91111418379878@webcorp01h.yandex-team.ru>


12.12.2014, 12:56, "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>:
> On 12/12/14 09:29, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
>> šBut just as I have failed to convince you of my case, the people arguing
>> šthat there is no problem and we should continue down the current path
>> šhave failed to convince me that the change is worth making.
>
> I just cannot believe you don't see value in that change.

Calm down, and read what I wrote. It isn't that I don't see value in the change, it is that I don't think it adds more value than it removes.

At the same time, I explained that a more serious set of changes would achieve the goal of that change, and add value.

In my assesment of member value to Yandex as a member.

> Tell that to Alex Russell and explain him why he was a valuable elected
> TAG member on the 8th of january 2014 and had to resign on the 30th
> of june because someone ELSE was elected on the 9th of january?

You're asking the wrong question. I agree that was unfortunate. But making a process by trying to add a new rule for everything we don't like isn't a very smart way to build.

> Explain all ACs why they elected a TAG member who could not serve
> there?

They didn't all elect him. And I believe a number of AC reps, some of whom are not in this discussion, were not in favour of making the change proposed - in other words they felt that the process worked as they expected, "protecting them" from circumstances the process tries to "rectify".

> I'm dead serious, tell me why there is a regulation forcing an
> individual I elected as a Member to resign for reasons 100%
> outside of the scope of his own actions,

Because there are effects on the consortium that emerge not from an individual's actions, but the sum of all actions by all relevant individuals,

> tell me why that rule is
> stronger than my vote as a Member of this Consortium, 

Because it was voted on by many members of the Consortium, and a basic principleis that your vote is not stronger than that of the majority of th members (just as it looks like my objection is overruled at least in the process CG since my vote is weaker than what appears to be effectivly a consensus with one objection)

> and tell me how this is not a big issue for my Member's benefits.

I'm not saying it isn't an issue for you. I'm saying that the issue doesn't play out for my member's benefits the way it apparently does for the other dozen people with an opinion here.

We work for different organisations with different perspectives, knowledge, goals and environments. 

I respect those who have spoken in favour of the proposal, not assuming they are crazy, stupid, malicious or capricious, and respect their perspectives, I would be very grateful if people began replying to me from a position that assumes I'm possibly behaving rationally, and my analysis of the problems and outcomes from the perspective of my organisation may simply not be the same as theirs. 

I see very little discussion addressing my actual arguments, which are (either post-hoc rationalisations of a position I hold through belief and won't change, or) the basis for voting against the proposal as it stands.

cheers

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Friday, 12 December 2014 10:25:15 UTC

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