W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > April 2015

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

From: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 15:44:17 +0000
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <66F9928D-0863-4A8B-B8E1-16A64EA3FA2A@microsoft.com>
For the record, I agree with David https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Apr/0103.html on this topic. I particularly agree with his points:

"I am less confident of our ability to notice when we are being swayed, when ‘group think’ is taking us into directions we might not otherwise espouse. I am also concerned that in a small group, having two from the same employer may reduce the diversity of opinion that would be expressed”

"No-one needs processes when all is sweetness and honey and we agree, Processes help guide us so we don’t end up in nasty tar-pits”

I don’t find Daniel’s argument that the person was elected by the AC and should be allowed to serve out their term to be persuasive.  Change of affiliation already triggers standing for election next time around in both the AC and AB even if the affiliation change does not lead to one member having two seats. Thus, the process already acknowledges the reality that an individual’s affiliation matters as much as being elected by the AC. 

The proposal on the table is a compromise between the two extreme positions that "affiliation trumps the AC choice" vs "the AC’s choice makes affiliation irrelevant".  I suggest we adopt the compromise and move on.

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Glazman
Date: Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 2:14 AM
To: "public-w3process@w3.org"
Subject: Re: Suggested response to the Yandex "cannot iive with loosening of  TAG participation requiremens"
Resent-From: <public-w3process@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 2:15 AM

>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 the arguments saying
>someone who was elected by AC vote not in capacity to finish a
>mandate unacceptable. 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.
Received on Thursday, 16 April 2015 15:44:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:28 UTC