- 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>
> -----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