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

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

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 06:31:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJK2wqWp7PppTHqYr00w6Eg9ga0=LABG9E0sMgYqNbQpujhLBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: Yosuke Funahashi <yosuke@funahashi.cc>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
TL;DR: I agree with Chaals.  I do not support notably increasing the size
of the AB, nor making it self-selective (since it's impossible to do that
without making it much larger), and I do not support getting rid of it
altogether.  I do support making it as transparent as possible.

On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile <
chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 14:29:41 +0200, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>  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.
> For the record I still don't support notably increasing its size.
>  Of course I also [again] support making it self-selective.
> I do not support this either. Having an elected, representative AB allows
> AC reps to trust the people who represent them. This is why I think it is
> very important to have the AB selected in a manner that represents the
> desires of the AC as best possible.
> I do support moving as much as possible of what it does to the AC at
> large, or community groups, and making the AB's work as transparent as
> possible (this allows AC reps to check that the people they trust really
> *are* representing them).
>  I would also support deleting the AB all together and having its `role`
>> usurped by AC reps (as well as some set of Webizens).
> I do not support deleting the AB altogether.
> I do think it is important that it is as transparent as possible,
> consistent with giving the team the ability to hold conversations in
> confidence on matters they think are sensitive and are not comfortable
> asking the AC at large.
> I think it is also important that the AB make a significant commitment to
> be available, that AC reps at large do not and should not have to make.
> cheers
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Monday, 9 June 2014 13:32:05 UTC

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