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

RE: Proposed Process Change Regarding TAG Participation Rules

From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 19:21:11 +0000
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
CC: Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>, Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>, "Brian Kardell" <bkardell@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c632214baff74ab9bc1dd16db7fc1c13@BN1PR02MB183.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 8:05 AM
> To: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)
> Cc: Daniel Appelquist; public-w3process; Wayne Carr; Stephen Zilles; Brian
> Kardell
> Subject: Re: Proposed Process Change Regarding TAG Participation Rules
> On Nov 3, 2014, at 16:00 , Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)
> <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Nov 3, 2014, at 7:37 AM, Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> My suggestion is that before we start trying to rethink the shape of the TAG
> we agree to the point on which there seems to be emerging consensus
> (allowing TAG members to serve until the next election period in case of
> affiliation change) and then debate other points after we have made that
> change.
> >
> > Makes sense to me. Let's do some sort of call for consensus I the Process CG
> to see if anyone can't live with this approach, and if that succeeds at least
> informally poll the AC to see if this will generate any formal objections to a
> revised process doc with this change.
> yes, let's see whether this fairly mild simplification can get traction.
> Dan, want to give it a day or two more, and if the dust has settled, send out the
> question?
[SZ] I think calling for consensus is a good way to proceed, but please do it with a specific suggested textual change to the Process Document so we do not have to repeat the process when wording is created. I had suggested such a change, but David pointed out that my change left an ambiguous whether having two TAG participants from the same company was still not allowed. I think a change to Section 2.5.1 Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Participation Constraints saying something like:
"A Member organization is permitted at most one participant on the TAG, except when this is caused by a change of affiliation of an existing participant and then this situation must be resolved to the Member having one participant at the next scheduled election."
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 3 November 2014 19:21:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:23 UTC