Re: Proposed Process Change Regarding TAG Participation Rules

> On 3 Nov 2014, at 13:07, Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 3 Nov 2014, at 12:53, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> 
>> I think as David is suggesting, as of now this would guarantee at least 1 year on TAG, right?
> 
> Well - as I understand David’s suggestion, no. If, for example, a TAG member with 14 months left in her term changes affiliation to a W3C member which already has an affiliated TAG participant, and the next election cycle is 2 months away, then she would give up her seat in 2 months and not be eligible to stand again (unless the other participant stepped down).

Ok - I now see that Brian meant 1 year total, so yes that would be correct - sorry for the (my) confusion. :) The rest of my email stands…

> 
> Whilst I think this is a better situation than we have now, as no special elections would be triggered, I still think it falls short, especially since many (including me) feel that the multiple participants constraint is artificial in the first place. As an example, if in the last series of TAG elections a group of candidates have agreed to run on a certain platform, publicly stated this platform, and been successful in their campaign to garner A.C. votes, win seats and change the agenda and focus of the TAG. They didn’t need to be in the same company to do so.
> 
> To my earlier point about appointed members, can we make a distinction between appointed and elected members (and assume that the Director can manage the potential conflicts of interest)? This could also help to manage the diversity issue I have brought up.
> 
> If it’s what on offer, I can live with it, but I’d prefer something stronger, considering that I have supported Noah’s original proposal which would have allowed for multiple participation from a single member.
> 
> Dan

Received on Monday, 3 November 2014 13:21:30 UTC