Suggested response to the Yandex "cannot iive with loosening of TAG participation requiremens"

The Process Document Task Force held a Call for Consensus (CfC) [1] to change the TAG participation rules in Process 2015. The result of this call [2] was positive in favor of the change (see below).
[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0163.html
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/0036.html

Yandex, via Chaals, objected [3] to this change and has proposed [4] an alternative set of changes to the TAG. With one exception, there was not a lot of support for these changes in the discussion that took place, both on this list and on the AC-Forum list.
[3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/att-0101/00-part
[4] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Mar/0029.html

Chaals has indicated [5] that he does not have another solution to finding a change that would satisfy both Yandex and the proposers of the change to TAG participation that is currently in the Draft Process 2015 document, but he indicated that if this is what the AC wants he could probably live with the change. He suggested balloting the AC to determine their desires.
[5] http://www.w3.org/2015/04/07-w3process-minutes.html

To that intent, the Task Force proposes to ballot (simultaneously) two versions of the TAG participation requirements when the Process Document is sent for final AC Review (and the Director's  Approval).

The first version (that which is now in the Draft Process 2015 document)
"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."

The second version (that in Process 2014)
"A Member organization is permitted at most one participant on the TAG."

Reviewers will asked, separately for each version,

1.      We approve this version

2.      We neither approve nor disapprove this version but we can live with it

3.      We cannot live with this version

If one version achieves "consensus" (the absence of "we cannot live with" and the other does not,  then the version that achieved "consensus" will be the text used for Process 2015. If both or neither version achieves "consensus", the results of this ballot will be evaluated to determine if there is a  preponderance of support (and suitable lack of dissent) for either of the two versions. Both "approve" and "we can live with" votes will be counted as support for a version. The version receiving the preponderance of support will be the text used for Process 2015.

This allows the AC to determine which version is used and for the Director to assess if there is sufficient support for either version.

Steve Zilles
Chair, Process Document Task Force