Re: ISSUE-133 - TAG role / makeup

On Mar 10, 2015, at 2:34 AM, wrote:

> 10.03.2015, 09:42, "Peter Linss" <>:
>> On Mar 9, 2015, at 10:57 PM, wrote:
>>>  Hi,
>>>  <>
>>>  We have made a change to this in the draft Process 2015, loosening the constraint for people who are hired by a company that already has a member.
>>>  I propose a rather more substantial set of changes:
>>>  - TAG has 12 members, including TimBL, 3 nominated by the Director, 9 elected by the membership.
>> Interesting, but TimBL + 3 + 9 = 13Ö so, TimBL, 3 nominated, 8 elected? or 13 members?
> Yep :S I ended up thinking 13 members. If not writing it.


>> Although this change would spoil a meme:
>>>  - The chair(s) must be chosen from among TAG members, by the Director.
>>>  - The TAG are elected by "Schulze-STV" (rather than the current system), 4 or 5 per year like the AB.
>>>  - Any number of employees of a member can be nominated, however only the one who is most preferred can take a seat. The others will be eliminated with the seats going to the next-most preferred candidate(s).
>>>  - A W3C member who employs a member of the TAG *must not* nominate another person for election.
>> What about a W3C member employing a member of the TAG nominating another person who is not an employee of that Member?
> That's an explicit case I want to prohibit.

I don't see the benefit and think this would actually do more harm. We've actually had a case recently where an elected TAG member's employer's AC rep failed to enter a nomination in a timely manner, and the nomination was made by a competitor who already had a TAG member. There was no collusion between the W3C members nor the TAG members, and no favors were asked nor offered, it was just logistics. We'd have lost an effective TAG member with this rule in place.

I presume the point of this rule is to prevent a W3C member from "stuffing" the TAG with sympathetic, if not loyal, TAG members. As I pointed out before, rules like this are more about the possibility of harm than actual harm, and if a TAG member begins acting in bad faith, there are already procedures to remove them (i.e. don't re-elect them, though I wouldn't oppose adding a recall mechanism as well). There's nothing preventing TAG members from different organizations from colluding, regardless of where the nomination came from, in fact this has already happened in recent history with good effect. 

Furthermore, many W3C members are large organizations with many internal groups that don't always have the same agenda. I can easily imagine situations where an AC member refuses to nominate a qualified candidate due to internal politics.  Why leave the decision of who to nominate to W3C member internal processes instead of leaving it up to the AC in general?

Rather than restricting the nomination process, how about we simply make it more transparent? When the nominees are announced, list who nominated them (and maybe explicitly call out cases where the nominating W3C member already has a standing TAG member who isn't affected by that election). I think this is some potentially valuable information which is currently not being disclosed to the AC.


There's also another potential situation, which already exists, and isn't ameliorated by your proposed changes. What happens when W3C member X has a TAG member (elected or appointed) who's term does not expire in the current election, another employee of X is nominated for the election (presumably by a different W3C member who, under your rules, doesn't have a current TAG member) and wins. Under the exiting rules, both can't serve, but there's no explicit rule stating which must step down. 

I propose that in this particular situation, the most recently elected TAG member retains their seat and the other steps down (it should also be called out in the nomination announcement that electing that TAG member would automatically cause the other to be removed). The vacated seat could then be immediately filled by the next-most preferred candidate in the election and we avoid needing a special election.

Or, we simply remove the restriction about multiple TAG members from a single W3C member... which is my actual preference.

>> (and I presume the member _would_ be able to nominate another employee(s) for the election where the current memberís term is expiring.)
> Yep.
>>>  - TAG members participate as representatives of their employer, for Patent Policy purposes. The Process already says this, but the current TAG charter which cannot override Process gives a different impression - this is affirming that the charter should be changed.
>> Other than the above Iím in favor of these changes.
>> Peter
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> - - - Find more at

Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2015 19:19:08 UTC