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

Re: ISSUE-133 - TAG role / makeup

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:37:09 -0700
Message-ID: <5500D1A5.7070108@linux.intel.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
CC: "Linss, Peter" <peter.linss@hp.com>, "chaals@yandex-team.ru" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>

On 2015-03-11 14:46, David Singer wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 2015, at 14:52 , L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 2015-03-10 19:17 +0000, Linss, Peter wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 2015, at 2:34 AM, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
>>>> 10.03.2015, 09:42, "Peter Linss" <peter.linss@hp.com>:
>>>>> 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.
>> Actually, why limit nominations to AC reps?  Why not just allow
>> anybody to nominate candidates?
> Because we want the IPR and physical support commitments, I think.

And why it is only the nominee's own AC rep rather than some other AC rep.

>> The current limitations (must be nominated by an AC Rep, each AC rep
>> can only nominate one person) have generally been worked around by
>> anybody with the right connections, by just asking around for AC
>> reps willing to nominate them.
> I think that the presumption might have been that AC Reps nominate from their own people, but agreed, the process doesn’t actually say that (I may be wrong).

The way I read it, the Process does say a Member can only nominate one 
of their own representatives (who can be an employee, contractor, ...) 
or an Independent Expert or a W3C Team representative.  That's all.  
They  can't nominate some other Member's representative.  The following 
paragraph says  "individual MUST qualify for Member representation 
<http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#member-rep> and the Member's 
Advisory Committee representative MUST include in the nomination ".   
That seems pretty clear it is the nominee's AC rep, not someone else if 
the person is a Member representative, not an IE or Team rep.

"Each Member (or group of related Members 
<http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#MemberRelated>) MAY nominate 
one individual. A nomination MUST be made with the consent of the 
nominee. In order for an individual to be nominated as a Member 
representative, the individual MUST qualify for Member representation 
<http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#member-rep> and the Member's 
Advisory Committee representative MUST include in the nomination the 
(same) information required for a Member representative in a Working 
Group <http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#member-rep-info>. In 
order for an individual to be nominated as an Invited Expert, the 
individual MUST provide the (same) information required for an Invited 
Expert in a Working Group 
<http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#inv-expert-info> and the 
nominating Advisory Committee representative MUST include that 
information in the nomination. In order for an individual to be 
nominated as a Team representative, the nominating Advisory Committee 
representative MUST first secure approval from Team management."

(Member representative doesn't only mean employee.  It can be a 
contractor or anyone the Member considers their representative. )

> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2015 23:37:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 March 2015 23:37:38 UTC