Re: Proposed Process Change Regarding TAG Participation Rules

The TAG has traditionally welcomed participation from former members (and continues to), regardless of the reason why they left. However, one of the problems we commonly face is that former participants have difficulty justifying both their time and especially their travel costs to their management when they are not officially a member. This generally leads to little or no actual participation.

On Nov 1, 2014, at 7:07 PM, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote:

> To be concrete, as I understand JC's proposal
>  
> Section 2.5.3 Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Vacated Seats says:
> " When an Advisory Board or TAG participant changes affiliations, as long as Advisory Board and TAG participation constraints are respected, the individual MAY continue to participate until the next regularly scheduled election for that group. Otherwise, the seat is vacated."
> AND
> Section 2.5.1 Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Participation Constraints says:
> “A Member organization is permitted at most one participant on the TAG.”
>  
> I believe that JC is proposing that section 2.5.3 Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Vacated Seats should say:
> " When an Advisory Board or TAG participant changes affiliations, the individual MAY continue to participate until the next regularly scheduled election for that group. Otherwise, the seat is vacated."
>  
> That is, the restriction, “as long as Advisory Board and TAG participation constraints are respected” is removed, at least for TAG participation.
>  
> In particular, the normal rule that, “A Member organization is permitted at most one participant on the TAG” is not changed.
>  
> I, for one, agree that a short term (less than a year) “over representation” by a Member is something we could live with to avoid extra elections and disruption of planned activities. Allowing the temporary continuation allows for a more graceful transition.
>  
> I am much less excited about allowing a Member to have more than one representative on the AB or TAG. It would be better for those bodies to find ways to enable non-elected participation where that is possible. The AB has already solicited participation in its Task Forces by people outside the AB and I see no reason why the TAG cannot do the same, including inviting participation in their meetings.
>  
> Steve Zilles
>  
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wayne Carr [mailto:wayne.carr@linux.intel.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 12:42 PM
> > To: David Singer; public-w3process
> > Subject: Re: Proposed Process Change Regarding TAG Participation Rules
> >
> >
> > On 2014-11-01 01:40, David Singer wrote:
> > > On Oct 31, 2014, at 19:07 , Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 10/31/14 10:23 AM, JC Verdié wrote:
> > >>> I support that in the case of the two-people conflict occurs, we can live with
> > that until the next election and *not* trigger a special election, but when the
> > regular election arrives, one of them will have to give up with his TAG seat.
> > >> Agree.
> > >>
> > > I think we can certainly look at the case where the next regular election is
> > ‘soon’.  I am trying to work out in my mind what that means.  The whole term?
> > Until the next annual election (seats are staggered, correct?)?  Special elections
> > are a pain.
> >
> > Next annual election seems good seems reasonable.  That's what happens for
> > vacated elected seats.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > David Singer
> > > Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>