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

14.04.2015, 16:25, "Daniel Glazman" <>:
> On 14/04/15 09:26, David Singer wrote:
>> šNo, sorry. šThat could lead to a situation where a single company has more than one representative for up to two years, which is too long in my opinion.
> What you want could lead to a situation where AC's vote is not
> followed. I find that issue far worse.

The difficulty is that AC votes *do* in some cases include consideration of "who is the member behind this nominee"? 

Hence inter alia my proposal that a member whose nominee holds a seat should not be allowed to propose another nominee. I'm not sure how clearly I expressed that - I know it was rough in my strawpeople because people asked for clarification.

> I completely fail seeing the issue behind a Member temporarily having
> two seats. We have a ton of WGs having multiple representatives for
> some large Members, and there's no problem because we focus on skills.
> Why would the TAG be different? Same people, same spirit, same skills,
> and better controlled by TimBL himself.

To be blunt. Because "controlled by TimBL himself" sounds different to different members, and because unlike Working Groups not only does the differential ability of large members to fund work give them a way to control the agenda, but this is further impacted by the arbitrary limits placed on the number of participants, something that isn't the case in working groups.



Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex - - - Find more at

Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2015 16:19:56 UTC