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

Re: ISSUE-133 - TAG role / makeup

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:22:10 -0700
Cc: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, "chaals@yandex-team.ru" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <58F41E0E-195D-4CA6-8834-3BD773362F73@apple.com>
To: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>

> On Mar 11, 2015, at 17:36 , Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 2015-03-10 15:02, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
>>> Overall, I think I need motivations rather than, or at least as well as, solutions!
>> +1 .  I'm not clear on what problem this issue identifies, thus it's hard to evaluate the solutions being discussed.
>> I'd be inclined to close the issue without action and revisit it later.  There's an experiment underway to evaluate whether Schulze STV would significantly change the makeup of the TAG and AB, so let's see what data that generates before making more voting changes.  Likewise there's a proposed revision to the Process Document being reviewed by the AC that addresses the problem of TAG members being forced to immediately resign because they find themselves working for the same company.  Let's see what the AC thinks about that before proposing more changes.
>> I am very interested in discussing the role of the TAG going forward.  For example, there is an AB discussion about how to handle formal objections in a world where Director has less time available to devote to W3C; one plausible way to do that would be to give the TAG (or another group primarily selected for their technical credentials) a role in resolving FOs. We should figure out what role we expect the TAG to play before worrying about how to select the people most suited to that role.
> I don't like the idea of delegating important decisions to a small group of experts.  Advise from the TAG is fine.  I wouldn't want them to become a decision making body or else I'd want it to be far more open -- like an Architecture WG any Member could have a representative in.  I'm also not sure FOs are always technical issues.

I think we are all in agreement here.  If it’s a technical, architectural, question, get the TAG’s advice (and get them to share the range of perspectives they see).  Don’t delegate to them, but use them appropriately.

Similarly, if it’s about governance, get the AB’s advice and variety of viewpoints.

(And no, if it’s about legal questions, don’t ask PSIG as the W3C doesn’t pay them and they will not advise.  Either run away, or ask the W3C’s lawyers).

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2015 20:22:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 12 March 2015 20:22:40 UTC