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

Since elections are 12 months apart, the proposed rule achieves what you ask for, I think. The situation has to be resolved by the end of the next election. Do you still oppose?

Sent from my iPad

> On Dec 12, 2014, at 7:58 AM, GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com> wrote:
> 
> I have been part of the ones arguing against any possibility to have 2 people working for the same company seating at the same time in the TAG.
> I would be happy with a change mentioning that new election should be organized, if and only if the same-company-people-seating-in-TAG have more than 12 months to seat together in TAG.
> As a conclusion, you can count me as “I oppose”.
>  
> Virginie
>  
>  
> From: Stephen Zilles [mailto:szilles@adobe.com] 
> Sent: vendredi 12 décembre 2014 02:57
> To: public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: Results: Call for Consensus: Proposed Process Change Regarding TAG Participation Rules
>  
> I have the following “votes” cast for the proposal:
>  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/0035.html
> I am strongly in favor.
> ~fantasai
>  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/0033.html
> - 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 
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/0029.html
> Count me in the “would prefer more but can live with it” category.
> - Sam Ruby
>  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/0032.html 
> 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.
> </Daniel>
>  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0168.html  
> I agree with the proposed change.
> Dan Appelquist
>  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/0022.html 
> 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
>  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/0018.html 
> I am also strongly in favor of the change. It's a small but reasonable step.
> Peter Linss
>  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/0016.html 
> 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
> elections
> L. David Baron
>  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/0015.html 
> > 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
>  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/0014.html 
> I would have explicitly agreed with the change.
> Chris Wilson
>  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/0007.html 
> I agree!
> Natasha Rooney
>  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/att-0173/00-part
> 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
>  
> This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
> E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
> Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a transmitted virus.