W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > September 2019

Re: Summary of TAG resolutions on Director-Free Process proposals

From: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 09:50:55 +0900
Message-ID: <CAF_7JxCZC2RK4XA03cencdq1YTy_8zyvpUpP4z7aoOd+OjEsmw@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>, Advisory Board <ab@w3.org>, W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
> TAG F2F to present the Director-free Process proposal.

Where would one find the proposal?

Thanks,

-- Pierre

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 12:50 AM fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
wrote:

> On Thursday several members of the AB (dsinger, Florian, cwilso, fantasai,
> and
> Jeff) joined the TAG F2F to present the Director-free Process proposal.
>
> These are the resolutions of the TAG on this topic, for consideration by
> the
> Process CG and AB (slightly reworded from the whiteboard for clarity).
>
> Topic: TAG Appointment Committee
>
> RESOLVED: Team participant should be a "non-voting" Staff Contact role,
>            but can break ties in votes if the committee takes any votes.
>
> RESOLVED: If committee can't make an appointment in time, Team will
> appoint,
>            but for Team appointments the term is only 1 year.
>
> RESOLVED: TAG Appointment Committee should be larger. Prefer 11 members
>            consisting of 10 "voting" members + 1 staff contact, following
>            IETF(?) precedent. Given a division of members into Chairs and
>            TAG members, suggest 3 TAG members and 7 chairs.
>
> RESOLVED: Randomly select from pool, then check whether willing to
> volunteer
>            (rather than asking for volunteers first, then randomly
> selecting
>            from reduced pool). Rationale: likely to yield broader
> membership
>
> -> Please find a way to represent the Web developer community.
> -> Restrict membership to not more than 1 member per company.
> -> Make lists of candidates from which members are selected public.
>
>
> Topic: W3C Objection Decision Council
>
> RESOLVED: Council should pick its own chair, per issue, by consensus,
>            falling back to a vote if that fails. (Goal is to choose a
>            neutral chair for the topic.)
>
> RESOLVED: Chair must be a member of the Council
>
> RESOLVED: If FO not resolved in X days, chair MUST report status to AC.
>            Report MAY be public. Suggest 90 < X < 180.
>
> RESOLVED: TAG supports that full Council must issue the conclusion,
>            even if smaller ad-hoc task forces are formed to do work.
>
> RESOLVED: No separately elected council. W3C Council as AB+TAG is good.
>
> RESOLVED: Council participation cannot require F2F participation.
>
> RESOLVED: Membership of Council for a particular issue should be fixed
>            at formation, not changed by elections. Recusal/withdrawals
>            allowed, but if membership drops below some minimum threshold,
>            council for that issue should be reformed.
>
> -> Discussed whether council's majority / minority opinions MAY, MUST,
>     or MUST NOT be signed. No conclusions yet.
> -> Discussed whether percentage of support for position should be reported,
>     but no conclusions yet. (Somewhat dependent on previous point.)
>
> ~fantasai
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2019 00:51:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:52 UTC