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: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 14:21:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJK2wqViDNcf6-VUkcenh4cu+KtRUJ-1z1hbtZJWmHQjCMHaxg@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Actually, the process basically says if we don't have enough nominees, we
keep re-issuing the call for nominations until we do.  That seems kinda
bad, even in current headcount.  I'd rather it said we just proceeded with
a reduced count, doing another nomination call as a special election or at
next regularly scheduled election, at Chair's discretion; but I think we're
splitting hairs, because if there weren't enough nominations the Team would
let the Chair know while the nominations were still open, the Chair would
probably tell the Board, and the Board would go hunt down some likely
candidates.

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 1:33 PM David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:

>
>
> > 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 22:28:35 UTC

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