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

> On Apr 14, 2015, at 15:51 , Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I think that the rules are built to stagger elections and so the
> proposed change would create a 'one year seat'.  Back to my point
> about striking the right balance between all the things - could we
> allow them to stand to finish their full term in that case? 

It’s an interesting idea, but it seems to be getting quite hard to explain and manage, and I am afraid of it raising yet more questions.  “You can have two reps on the TAG but only as a result of one or both of them having been elected while representing a different member company.”  It seems…contorted?  But I appreciate what you’re saying, that basically the AC is asked for a ‘confirmation vote’ for them to continue serving.

Examples of new questions raised:

* So, if I had zero representatives, and then an existing one becomes my employee, can I nominate a second at the next election? It has the same effect, and from the same causes, but in a different sequence.

* If I am allowed two by confirmation ballot, as suggested, why am I not allowed two by initial ballot (i.e. the AC ‘chose’ to elect two from the same company)?  (I think I can answer that: I and other may want to be able to vote that I am fine with either Fred or Joe getting elected, but not both, but that is not expressible in our current balloting system.)

Hm. We should hear from Yandex, who seem already unhappy in thinking of moving this far…and this idea moves further towards double representation.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.