Re: ACTION REQUIRED: Call for Consensus: Proposed Process Change Regarding TAG Participation Rules; Respond by December 8, 2014

I agree with the proposed change. (And thank you, Steve, for your work on this proposal.)

Dan

> On 25 Nov 2014, at 04:11, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> This is a Call for Consensus to update the Process 2015 Draft with a change to the first bullet of Section 2.5.1 Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Participation Constraints of August 1, 2014 Process Document. Responses to this call are due by Close of Business on 8 December 2014 (two weeks). Please send a reply to this message (I agree, I disagree, I abstain) to register your opinion. The CG rules do NOT assume that a lack of reply is agreement with the proposal. (See
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jun/0160.html
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jun/0163.html )
> If you wish to discuss the proposed change, please create a new thread for that discussion (so that “votes” are easily separated from “discussion”).
>  
> The proposed change:
>  
> The existing Process 2014 text is:
> “A Member organization is permitted at most one participant on the TAG.
>  
> The proposed replacement text is:
> “A Member organization is permitted at most one participant on the TAG, except when having more than one participant is caused by a change of affiliation of an existing participant. At the completion of the next regularly scheduled election for the TAG, the Member organization MUST have returned to having at most one participant.”
>  
> This text tries to be a clear as possible about what the requirement on participation is, “At most one”, without constraining how an Member organization reaches that state.
>  
> FAQ
>  
> 1.      Does this also require modifications to paragraph 2 of section 2.5.1 and possibly to paragraph 2 of 2.5.3?"
>  
> Changes are not required to either of the above paragraphs.
>  
> Paragraph 2 of section 2.5.1 begins, " If, for whatever reason, these constraints are not satisfied" this is a conditional that refers to the rules the proposed replacement text changes below. Since the constraint is changed to allow multiple participants, the constraint would be satisfied (up to the next regularly scheduled election). That means that the rest of the paragraph does not apply (and need not change).
>  
> Paragraph 2 of 2.5.3 begins, " When an Advisory Board or TAG participant changes affiliations, as long as Advisory Board and TAG participation constraints are respected," Again, the changed participation constraints are satisfied up to the next regularly scheduled election and the rest of the paragraph does not apply so no change is necessary.
>  
> 2.      Does this change allow an organization to nominate two candidates (or one, if they already have a person serving whose term will not expire) at any scheduled election with the idea that if both are elected, then both can serve till the next scheduled election?
>  
> No, When any election completes an organization MUST have “at most one participant”. If there is the possibility of two persons from the same organization being elected, that statement would be invalidated so nominating candidates that could invalidate the restriction is not to be allowed.
>  
> 3.      Is “next regularly scheduled election” well-enough defined in the Process Document?
> 
> Yes, section 2.4.1 Technical Architecture Group Participation says, “Regular TAG terms begin on 1 February and end on 31 January.” and that terms are for two years and are staggered. Section 2.5.2 Advisory Board and Techincal Architecture Group Elections says, “An election begins when the Team sends a Call for Nominations to the Advisory Committee.” Since the nominations must precede the elections and elections must precede the beginning of terms, this (implicitly) specifies when the next regularly scheduled elections take place.
>  
> Steve Zilles