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: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 11:27:32 -0500
Message-ID: <548DBA74.8040007@intertwingly.net>
To: public-w3process@w3.org
On 12/14/2014 09:41 AM, Léonie Watson wrote:
> Chaals wrote:
> "In my own experience on the AB, in principle people could read the mailing
> list and minutes for the last few years to find out what had already been
> discussed before they joined, but it seems rare that it actually happens,
> resulting in revisiting things that don't need to be rehashed (as well as
> revisiting questions that are due to be revisited - it isn't as if the
> answers to questions that were given from 5-10 years ago should never be
> re-opened)."
>
> I can't speak for TAG specifically, but generally with these things it's
> helpful to have some work-mode continuity too. Otherwise there tends to be a
> period with minimal productivity whilst the new group figures out its
> approach. It's difficult to discover how things are done just by reading
> minutes/mailing lists, no matter how diligent someone is.

I don't think that there is any question that continuity is desirable.

I will simply note that in the W3C there seems to be an institutional 
propensity to define process with the intent of preventing undesirable 
things from happening.  I don't question the intention of doing so.  I 
do, however, question the outcome.

I will also note that the current (2014) process has hurt continuity by 
making good people step down based on an unrelated action by their 
current employer.

I will also repeat that turnover has not proven to be a problem at the 
ASF.  Nor do people who weren't reelected routinely disappear.  This is 
particularly true for people who have a desire to be a candidate in the 
upcoming year.

It also is not uncommon for the ASF board to have two members sharing an 
employer.  This has not caused problems.  Nor does this condition have a 
tendency to survive; in fact, over time there has been a variety of 
employers with this distinction, including Adobe, CollabNet, IBM, and 
RedHat.

We don't have processes in place to ensure that this happens.  We do, 
however, employ a Single Transferable Vote voting system which is 
designed to achieve proportional representation through ranked voting in 
multi-seat constituencies.

> Léonie.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 14 December 2014 16:28:00 UTC

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