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

On 2015-04-16 00:30, Carine Bournez wrote:
> Just my 2cts:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 09:12:35AM +0300, Daniel Glazman wrote:
>> I have similar stories to tell. In certain circumstances, employers
>> push on employees' shoulders. Even if it's possible in the TAG, I think
>> the structure of the TAG makes it almost impossible for such employers
>> to impose a view that is not consensual anyway. And it's considerably
>> harder in public www-tag.
> Once upon a time, W3C had restrictions on the number of employees of
> a given company in a Working Group. This limitation has disappeared
> a long time ago, while formal voting still has one company = one vote
> anyway. It does not make sense to continue the bikeshedding for ages
> for a special case that happened only once in many years. The simplest
> rule is to let the person at least continue until the next election so
> that no new election is needed. She/He can still resign voluntarily

There isn't any requirement for a special election if someone resigns.  
The chair can request it.  Apparently, they often do request it.  Maybe 
they shouldn't.  Otherwise it gets dealt with like in the current 
Process at the next election.  The person is off the Tag or AB.

As I understand it, the AB and TAG can invite people to attend 
meetings.  They could choose to invite whoever lost their seat due to 
affiliation change to attend for the duration of their term (without any 
process change) and, if that person is influential, they continue to 
have influence without formally being in the TAG or AB.  If the AC or AB 
need someone to do more work, they could ask for volunteers if the 
person who dropped the seat because of change in affiliation didn't want 
to continue informally.  If it's a matter of some formal title to 
justify travel expense, the TAG or AB could have helpers they call upon 
in an "extended AB" or "extended TAG" that the group selects to help 
them with work.  I don't think there needs to be a process change for that.

This list I think demonstrates that useful work on the process can 
happen with people who are not on the AB.  People can still have useful 
impact if they aren't in these small groups if the general process is open.

> if she/he chooses to do so. Should the relaxed rule cause an issue in
> the future (when another case arise in 15years?), it would be ok to
> holler and revise.


Received on Thursday, 16 April 2015 16:49:37 UTC