- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 13:32:35 -0800
- To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Cc: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, public-w3process@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