Re: Is the TAG structure harmful? [Was: Fwd: Forced Resignation]

Hi Art,

On 30/06/2014 16:50 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
> [ Bcc public-w3process ]
> On the one hand, as long as some set of TAG participants are elected by
> Members, I suspect some see (marginal?) value in limiting the number of
> participants from an organization. OTOH, I think Consortium processes
> actually retard the growth of the Web when those processes prohibit or
> limit willing and capable people from directly contributing to Web
> standards.

I won't deny that you bring up good points here, but I think it would be 
valuable to keep this discussion focused on this specific issue (though 
opening up other thread for the other issues is certainly an option).

The rule in question is small and simple, and altering it in the Process 
is a rather straightforward, well-defined change. I think that it would 
be beneficial for the AB to get into the habit of making such small, 
well-defined changes to the Process on a regular basis (whenever required).

The alternative is the sort of paralysis incurred by boiling the ocean. 
Again, I don't dispute the validity of your other points, but if this 
turns into a "Hey, let's fix the TAG!" project we won't see a change for 
2-5 years.

A well-functioning organisation should be able to go through those steps 
in under two months (mostly accounting for a 4 week voting period):

   1. Hey look, we have a problem with losing the very scarce resource 
of quality contributors; happened twice in two years (and has happened 
before, e.g Norm).
   2. Here is a five-line change to the Process document to fix the 
issue (presumably from the AB or the Process CG).
   3. AC votes to accept or reject after a discussion period. The WBS 
poll can include the option to apply the change to the current roster.
   4. On to next issue!

This would allow you to take up your other change proposals on similar 
grounds (though I understand that switching the organisation could make 
this change moot).

I would contend that an organisation that can't fix a well-defined, 
well-scoped, small problem (or conversely decide that it isn't a problem 
and refuse the fix) inside of two months is dysfunctional.

Robin Berjon - - @robinberjon

Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 15:13:42 UTC