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

I don't disagree with Wayne, although I agree with Steve.

In other words, I have no problem with a poll, but I don't see why it is 
attached to the final review of Process2015.

There was plenty of time to try to find a consensus in Process2015; many 
discussions on multiple email lists.  what we came down to - which had 
the greatest consensus for now - is what is in the document.

But it does not need to be the end of the discussion.  We have run out 
of time in Process2015 (unless we don't want to do a rev this year).  
But we should be starting Process2016.  (In fact Process2016 is on the 
agenda for next month's AC meeting).  So if the process CG wants to do 
this poll and make further progress on the TAG issue as part of 
Process2016; let's do so.

Jeff

On 4/15/2015 12:09 PM, Wayne Carr wrote:
> Why not leave it as is in what goes to AC Review (but fixing a couple 
> of errors), but start a separate AC poll now on the alternatives 
> (quick poll, start now in AC and end before AC meeting).  That will 
> make the AC aware of it and give the Director specific feedback from 
> the AC on that particular issue.
>
> Possible wording for poll -- I wouldn't include historical background 
> -- just the poll.  It's already long.
>
> [[
> When due to change in affiliation, a W3C Member has more than 1 
> employee on either the TAG or AB or has a single employee on both the 
> TAG and AB, the current Process constraints require ceasing work 
> immediately that violates the participation constraint.  There are a 
> number of alternatives that have been proposed changing that rule.
>
> Option 1.  constraint on participation is violated due to change in 
> affiliation, one person stops work immediately and vacate the seat 
> within 30 days (a special election is not required, but the Chair can 
> ask for it).  This is the current Process.
>
> "If, for whatever reason, these constraints are not satisfied (e.g., 
> because a TAG or AB participant changes jobs), one participant MUST 
> cease TAG or AB participation until the situation has been resolved. 
> If after 30 days the situation has not been resolved, the Chair will 
> declare one participant's seat to be vacant." (current Process 2.5.1)
>
> "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." (current Process 2.5.3)
>
> 1) favor that as the policy;
> 2) fine, don't care;
> 3) don't like it but can live with it;
> 4) do not want it.
>
> Option 2. constraint on participation is violated due to change in 
> affilation, this is allowed until the next election.  This is the 
> proposal in the proposed Process.
>
> "If, for whatever reason, these constraints are not satisfied (e.g., 
> because an AB participant changes jobs), one participant must cease AB 
> participation until the situation has been resolved. If after 30 days 
> the situation has not been resolved, the Chair will declare one 
> participant's seat to be vacant." (proposed Process 2.5.1, 3 March 
> 2015 Editor's Draft)  -- this is an error - assume for this poll it is 
> consistent with the next quote.
>
> "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." (proposed Process 2.5.3, 3 March 2015 Editor's Draft)  -- 
> there is an error here too - the idea is they don't have to leave 
> until the next election.
>
> 1) favor that as the policy;
> 2) fine, don't care;
> 3) don't like it but can live with it;
> 4) do not want it.
>
> Option 3) constraint on participation is violated, this is allowed 
> until the term expires (so not the next election if not up for 
> re-election until the term after that).
>
> 1) favor that as the policy;
> 2) fine, don't care;
> 3) don't like it but can live with it;
> 4) do not want it.
>
>
> Option 4) constraint on participation is violated -- remove the 
> constraints and allow Member to have more than one employee in either 
> group and allow the same person in both groups.
>
> 1) favor that as the policy;
> 2) fine, don't care;
> 3) don't like it but can live with it;
> 4) do not want it.
>
> ]]
>
> On 2015-04-14 15:32, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> The discussion that has been going on is interesting but ti is not to 
>> the point of the “Suggested Response”
>>
>> Procedurally, Process 2015 is in “Public Beta”; that is, we have a 
>> document; we are not adding new functionality; we are fixing those 
>> bugs that are necessary to fix to be able to ship the document. That 
>> means, for Process 2015, we are not re-opening the debate on the best 
>> solution for TAG participation (because that would be new 
>> functionality). Such debate is entirely appropriate for Process 2016 
>> or beyond, but we are not there yet.
>>
>> We have done a “Last Call” on a Draft Process 2015 Document. That 
>> “Last Call” had revised text for TAG participation.
>>
>> The “revised text” was prepared to solve a problem that required the 
>> resignation of one TAG member when a TAG member joined an 
>> organization that already had a TAG member. This text was a 
>> compromise between the current rule that says a given organization 
>> can never have to participants on the TAG  and a potential rule that 
>> says once an individual is elected he may serve the rest of his/her 
>> two year term, even if he/she joins an organization with an existing 
>> TAG participant. This text passed a Call for Consensus in December, 
>> but not without dissent from both more extreme positions.
>>
>> The next step is to respond to comments on that “Last Call” document 
>> and ask the Advisory Board to send an edited version for a final AC 
>> Review prior to the May AC meeting. The Advisory Board has the 
>> responsibility (according to the Process) of deciding what (if 
>> anything) to forward to an AC Review.
>>
>> Responding to comments and “fixing the bugs” means resolving issues 
>> identified in the draft document or, when there is no simple change, 
>> postponing resolution until a future draft of the Process.
>>
>> The point at issue for Process 2015 with respect to TAG participation 
>> is what do we send to the AC for a final AC Review. There are two 
>> choices:
>>
>> 1.The original text that is in Process 2014, or
>>
>> 2.The revised text that is currently in the Draft Process 2015 document
>>
>> At least one reviewer (of the “Last Call” document) has indicated 
>> that his organization cannot live with the revised text. This 
>> reviewer was asked if there was a way, other than restructuring the 
>> TAG, that would resolve his concerns. He indicated that from his 
>> viewpoint there was no such way.
>>
>> So, with respect to the TAG participation issue, there does not seem 
>> to be a simple change that fixes the problem. Recognizing that there 
>> was dissent on the revised text,  two strategies have been suggested:
>>
>> 1.Simply send the Process 2015 draft (with the revised text for TAG 
>> participation, but with other bugs fixed) to the AC. If there are any 
>> formal objections then they will be handled as usual by the Director.
>>
>> 2.Send the Process 2015 draft (with the revised text for TAG 
>> participation, but with other bugs fixed) to the AC, but include in 
>> the Review Ballot a separate ballot on the alternatives (the Process 
>> 2014 text and the revised text for TAG participation) that the 
>> Reviewer can separately approve, live-with or disapprove. Then, 
>> choose the alternative with the fewest objections and most support.
>>
>> Deciding between these two or some other approach is up to the 
>> Advisory Board; it is not the role of the Task Force or the CG. We 
>> develop recommendations (if there is consensus to do so).
>>
>> Note, that the Process does not really define rules for choosing the 
>> alternative with the fewest objections and the most support. Section 
>> 3.3 Consensus of the Process Document says, “Where unanimity is not 
>> possible, a group should strive to make consensus decisions where 
>> there is significant support and few abstentions.” This lack of a 
>> clear process could lead to contention on evaluating the results of 
>> such a ballot with alternatives.
>>
>> Resolving this issue for Process 2015, at its current state, does not 
>> mean that a more comprehensive discussion cannot take place in the 
>> future. The time is NOT now, however.
>>
>> Steve Zilles
>>
>> Chair, Process Document Task Force
>>
>