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

> On Apr 16, 2015, at 11:14 , Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
> 
> On 16/04/15 11:20, David Singer wrote:
> 
>> I find the arguments for relaxing beyond the next election not as strong as those for relaxing up to the next election.
> 
> 
> That's where I am 100% in opposition.

I find this somewhat of a non-sequitur; you think the arguments for continuing beyond the next election are as strong or stronger than continuing up to the next election??

> I find the arguments saying
> someone who was elected by AC vote not in capacity to finish a
> mandate unacceptable.

That is the background we are working with; that dual representation is not permitted.  We’re trying to deal with the case that arises when it occurs as a result of change of representation.

> I hve a compromise proposal: allow people to
> finish their mandate but allow only one vote per Member in TAG's
> official decisions.
> That way, we don't touch elections, we don't touch mandates, and you
> still keep your "security". It's also simpler and cleaner.

We discussed this in the process TF as I recall, and it didn’t seem likely we’d get consensus on going that far: not least because Chaals has a formal objection that we’ve gone too far already unless other major changes are made. And as I said, if we allow double representation for full terms as a result of change of affiliation, this immediately raises the question of why we should not allow it as a result of election, i.e. abandon the rule completely. I think your compromise naturally puts us at the end of the spectrum, rather than in the middle of it. Chaals already thinks my compromise goes too far; you think it doesn’t go far enough…



David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.