On 2014-12-11 17:56, Stephen Zilles wrote:

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


If this doesn't pass by the rules of the CG, we should probably change the rules of the CG.  It's advice to the AB (and also advice part of the AC will be aware of).  I'd think this would likely pass if the split was like this in the AC.  It should be something like the Chair judges consensus and members can appeal and have a vote if they don't agree and the vote gets reported to the AB.

I don't know why any of this about the AB and TAG is in the process document.  I'd have it say that the AC will decide on a policy for how it provides advice to the W3C Team when the AC is not available and that the AC and Director will decide (with an AC Review) on a policy for providing architectural advice and for handling appeals of a Member Submission.  And if no other policy is in adopted the appeal is by an AC Review.  And move all those pages and pages to a policy doc we can alter with an AC Review.

Does the membership at large really need to read all those details about two advisory groups to figure out how the W3C works?  Do we need to go through a year long process to decide whether two people from the same company can stay on until the next election?  I'd like the Process doc to be small enough that people sit down and read it all - it should be the key things we want guaranteed, not everything we want to be a rule.  Like the difference between what's in a small, compact constitution and a law.



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