Re: [DRAFT for comment] email to the AC on issue #6

> On May 18, 2017, at 06:07, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> 
> The Process CG discussed today whether we should take this question up, and we felt that we need guidance from the AC. There are two explicit questions here, and a third one implied.
> 
> 1) Is the structure of the AB adequately defined?  The answer would seem to be yes, in that elections etc. define the composition.
> 2) Is the role of the AB adequately defined?  One might argue that a clearer definition of role could be achieved, but it’s doubtful that that would improve what the AB actually does, so it’s doubtful the AB itself needs a clearer definition. So, question to the AC: are people outside the AB uncertain of the role of the AB, and would a re-definition help?
> 
> Then there is am implied question:
> 3) Do the role and structure of the AB match what we want and need?
> 
> This is clearly a large can of worms and opens the possibility of multiple lengthy responses and replies to responses.  However, despite calls for more active engagement with the AB, more active AB work, and so on, it’s not clear that the AC sees any problems with the defined role and structure.
> 
> 
> So, the overall question to the AC: should we take this up, and if so, to improve what, or solve what problem (i.e. to what goal or end would we be working)?

1) yes

2) the current role seems clear, and I do not think a re-definition would help

3) I think this is a question worth exploring, but not in isolation. The AB also needs to consider the role of the director, and the question of whether the W3C should become a legal entity (and if so, how). If the answer to these two questions is that we're fine as is, then the question of the role of the AB can be looked at separately, but otherwise, we will need to think through the whole governance structure, including but not limited to the AB.

—Florian

Received on Thursday, 18 May 2017 03:18:46 UTC