W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > June 2014

Re: Disclosing election results -- a voice of caution

From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 16:38:22 +0000
To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
CC: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2C7ACD23-D35E-4757-A289-EF9ED22EBAA4@adobe.com>

On Jun 5, 2014, at 9:35 PM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:

> On 6/3/2014 7:53 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>> On Jun 3, 2014, at 7:13 AM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>>> 98 Members voted which is more than 25% of the Membership.  Personally, I am quite pleased that there was this level of interest.  While not the 90+% that I would have preferred, the 25% is still larger than some democratic political elections in some locations.
>> That it's larger than some place does not make it good, or even good enough. In the democracies I know, 25% participation is considered to seriously lack in relevance and legitimacy. Typical editorials and headlines in such outcomes wax much angst on 'our broken democracy' etc. Needless to say, I didn't expect you to be 'quite pleased'.
> As I said elsewhere in the thread, my impression is that there are various reasons why large numbers of Members (particularly smaller ones) are not that interested in voting.

I was wondering about that; the cost of active participation in technical activities - in man-hours, travel, etc. - can be significant so it'd make sense for many members to prioritize this and, to the extent possible, free-ride on members with more resources for things like the AC, AB etc.

> Also, I was pleased because this is a higher turnout than in the past.

That is a positive, given the growth of the membership lately.

> But I agree (as I said) that I would prefer 90%+.
>> But I also don't think 'open voting' - however defined - or the lack thereof has anything to do with this either.
Received on Friday, 6 June 2014 16:39:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:19 UTC