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: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 15:41:58 -0500
Message-ID: <548B5316.8050404@intertwingly.net>
To: public-w3process@w3.org

On 12/12/2014 03:36 PM, Wayne Carr wrote:
> On 2014-12-12 12:23, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 12/12/2014 12:37 PM, Olle Olsson wrote:
>>> Anyway, /post factum/, "I can live with the proposal"  -- if I still
>>> remember what it was ;-)
>>> The phrase is, I believe, "I agree".
>> To be clear, I don't agree with Dan's proposal, but I can live with it.
>> By contrast, I do agree with what Chaals has outlined[1].  There are
>> even a few ways I would go further.
>> At the ASF, all board seats are up for reelection each year. There are
>> no seats reserved for nomination by the Directors.  Any stakeholder in
>> the ASF can nominate themselves or as many people as they like.  The
>> ASF uses the term "Member" for stakeholder, the closest equivalent at
>> the W3C would at a minimum include all chairs.  We also use a
>> proportional voting system, like Chaals has advocated.
>> With a proportional voting system coupled with every seat being up for
>> election each year means that any influence a company could attempt to
>> get would be temporary at best.
> With so small a group, every seat up every year does sound good. I don't
> think we need to worry about continuity - that may not always be good. I
> also agree with the list of improvements Chaal's suggested.

At the ASF, we worried about continuity, and then found it hasn't been a 
problem in practice.  Generally we have a minimum of 7 returning board 
members, and often the "new" ones were previously a member of the board.


- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 12 December 2014 20:42:23 UTC

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