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: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 11:00:27 -0800
Message-ID: <548DDE4B.70605@linux.intel.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-w3process@w3.org

On 2014-12-14 08:27, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 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.

Incumbents would have a major advantage in an election - for having 
relevant experience, for being in the middle of doing things the AC find 
useful, etc..  In an org like W3C where Browsers are so important, major 
Browser vendors have  very large numbers of participants, play a central 
role in creating specs and have many people with backgrounds impressive 
in TAG or AB elections, so AB or TAG members from those companies may 
have an advantage in elections and that may lead to continuity of 
representation.  On the other hand, not having continuity in some 
election would happen if the AC did not want continuity.  I don't see 
the advantage of everyone in these groups being guaranteed to be able to 
serve for 2 years rather than 1.

> 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.

In W3C, the Browser companies obviously have a good deal of influence.  
Understanding the whole individuals, not representing their companies, 
it still seems reasonable to ensure more diversity of employers in these 

> 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 19:00:56 UTC

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