AB size [Was: Re: Is strategic voting a problem? - was RE: Don't disclose election results]

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