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

On 2015-04-13 12:36, Daniel Glazman wrote:
> On 13/04/15 19:51, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>>> "we"? Who's that "we"? Not me.
>> [SZ] I believe the "we" was the majority position in the discussion 
>> of this issue last fall. The position that led to a Call for 
>> Consensus on the text that is in the current Process 2015 Draft.
> Fair enough. But I still don't recognize my opinion in that
> consensus.
>> [SZ] I am confused by your reading of the prose, assuming that you 
>> mean the text of the proposed change to TAG participation. That text 
>> says, " At the completion of the next regularly scheduled election 
>> for the TAG" not prior to it. That was done to allow flexibility in 
>> the way a conflict (more than one participant from a single 
>> organization) was handled and to allow all participants to complete 
>> at least a year of their term.
> I stand corrected.
> BUT the prose says the "the next regularly scheduled election". So
> in theory, an elected member of the TAG for a two years mandate could
> see its seat automatically renewed after only one year. I don't see this
> as normal and respecting ACs' vote.

Here is the current process:

"When an Advisory Board or TAG participant changes affiliations, as long 
as Advisory Board and TAG participation constraints are respected, the 
individual MAY continue to participate until the next regularly 
scheduled election for that group. Otherwise, the seat is vacated." AND 
"When an elected seat on either the AB or TAG is vacated, the seat is 
filled at the next regularly scheduled election for the group unless the 
group Chair requests that W3C hold an election before then"

I'm not sure what you mean by "automatically renewed", but vacating a 
seat and replacing it at the next election is in the current Process, so 
is what the AC expects when they vote.

>> [SZ] Your "Ooops" is valid, but the situation is not as clear as you 
>> indicate. Section 2.5.2 of the Process, second paragraph, says, " 
>> Each Member (or group of related Members) may nominate one 
>> individual. And, Section 2.1.2. item number 3., says, " two Members 
>> are related if, [...]The Members have an employment contract or 
>> consulting contract that affects W3C participation." So it would not 
>> seem to be possible for the contracting company to nominate a 
>> contractor if they had a participant. This is an area where some 
>> clean-up might be useful.
> Let's list the ambiguities then: an individual may be nominated by a
> Member, without being employed by any Member, contracting
> for them at date D. Elected. A year later, next election, that
> individual is not contracting for them any more and the Member may wish
> to nominate an employee. Refused?

I may misremember this.  An AC rep can name a contractor as representing 
the company that AC rep works for (they're affiliated with the W3C 
Member company in a user account).  When they stopped representing the 
company, I'd think if they were on the AB, they'd need to become an IE 
or be affiliated with someone else or on the Team, so would no longer be 
the first companies rep, so I'd think not refused.

> An individual may be nominated by a Member, without being employed by
> any Member, and NOT contracting for them (I think Domenic employee of
> Lab49 and nominated by jQuery Foundation was in that case). Suppose
> that Member already has a TAG seat. Refused? If not and if the
> individual is elected but then starts some contracting for the Member,
> refused? So a a Web specialist doing service for living and elected to
> the TAG should refuse all contracts with all other TAG Members? That
> would shut down a very large part of his market, right?

It may not be as complicated as it seems.  A web specialist could be a 
W3C Member and then they'd be on the TAG related to that.   If they're 
affiliated with some other Member instead and have an account that way, 
then I'd think they count for who they're affiliated with.  If they're 
an IE then they aren't affiliated with anyone I'd think.

> There are too many holes in the "representation capacity" of 3.1.2
> for this election format, and vice-versa.
>> [SZ] I am not sure what you mean by this statement. One of the two 
>> proposed texts MUST be in the document. The issue is choosing between 
>> them. There is the text that is in Process 2014 which seems to be 
>> much further from your desired text and the proposed change which is 
>> nearer to your desired goal, but still lacking from your perspective. 
>> For Process 2015, those are the choices. It is, of course, possible 
>> to re-open a new issue for Process 2016 that would have different text.
> I agree the proposed text is nearer to my expectation. But it's still a
> suboptimal solution. I want to avoid anything suboptimal in the Process.
> FWIW, Brian Kardell said:
>> If there are people who get elected to TAG and switch employers after
>> some time, we should let them finish the term they were elected to
>> IMO.  I don't see anything in this which personally causes me to
>> question the institution - it seems like it will mostly take care of
>> itself if you have reasonable constraints on the elections themselves.
> I could not agree more. Simpler, clearer, cleaner, unambiguous.
> </Daniel>

Received on Monday, 13 April 2015 20:09:54 UTC