W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > November 2018

Re: Call for Consensus (in email) on closing out process 2019, ONE WEEK POLL closing NOV 15th

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 13:32:35 -0800
Cc: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, public-w3process@w3.org
Message-id: <2E798CB6-D5B5-409D-8192-FA31FE60D30E@apple.com>
To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>


> On Nov 8, 2018, at 11:49 , Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >2) Pull Request: Sets the size of the AB to 9–11
>> >https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/224
>> >
>> >The current process enlarges the AB from 9 to 11, a size that might be
>> >difficult to fill all the time. This softens that change, saying “at
>> >least 9 and no more than 11”, and defines how the elections and so on
>> >run to manage that. While we’re in this area, it’s convenient to land
>> >this at the same time.
>> >
>> >Do we have consensus to incorporate PR 224?
>> 
>> 0 (no opinion)
>> 
> I also would put a 0.  Chris' point worries me.  He suggests that we are making this unnecessarily complex.  I worry about voting things that are complex.  We have not yet recovered from the confusion about STV.  Why introduce something that is not thought through?  What are the unintended consequences?

I think what’s in the process is what Chris proposes; if we don’t get enough nominees to hit the max, the seats are left open. This doesn’t complicate elections.

However, I agree that in today’s excitable and contentious and busy world, we’re probably not going to have a problem being below the max any time soon, so this is more future-proofing than dealing with an imminent issue.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2018 21:33:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:49 UTC