- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2014 08:29:41 -0400
- To: Yosuke Funahashi <yosuke@funahashi.cc>, public-w3process@w3.org
On 6/6/14 11:42 AM, Yosuke Funahashi wrote: > On 6/7/14, 12:30 AM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: >> BUT I still think the much worse problem is that we have qualified >> and committed people who wish to contribute to the AB/TAG but aren't >> elected because we are forced to select only 5 of them each year. >> Nothing I've seen in these threads indicates that there are more than >> 20-30 people in the consortium who know/care enough about what either >> group does and have the employer support to spend time on it. I'm >> just not convinced that there would have been a downside to having >> all 12 of the people who ran for the AB this year be seated, and >> letting them self-select who stays depending on their actual >> contributions. Take away the fun of the competition and the supposed >> prestige of winning, we'll be left with the people who really want to >> spend their time working to improve how W3C runs and what it says >> about the architecture of the Web. > > +1 > > This is one of the reasons why I wrote a message that we should make > the AB open. Some people sounded comfortable with keeping the AB small > or current size, which I don't understand at all. For the record, I also support increasing the size of the AB. Of course I also [again] support making it self-selective. I would also support deleting the AB all together and having its `role` usurped by AC reps (as well as some set of Webizens). -Thanks, AB
Received on Sunday, 8 June 2014 12:30:09 UTC