W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2012

Re: TAG election reform

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:17:39 -0400
Message-ID: <4F957293.1010607@arcanedomain.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>
(writing as TAG chair)

Robin has asked that the TAG discuss this on Thursday, and we will. I do 
want to point out that from a strictly procedural point of view, changes to 
the W3C process are formally the responsibility of the AB, W3C management 
and the AC. Normally, we don't discuss process issues on the TAG, except 
when they affect our ability to do our technical work.

Obviously, changing the processes relating to the TAG itself is a special 
case, and I'm fine with scheduling some informal brainstorming; the TAG 
would likely want to weigh in with its perspective if this proposal is 
pursued formally. Still, I want to be clear that it's not the TAG's job to 
make a change like this happen or not happen. That responsibility (IMO) 
likes with the AB, management, and the AC.

Thank you.


On 4/16/2012 11:15 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> Dear all,
> a little while back I sent an email (to the Member-only TAG list as I wanted to get the temperature first) with some notes based on feedback I received during the last election[0]. It received no objection, and at least some parts saw some support[1], but no action was derived from it. I completely forgot to bring it up when we met with Coralie for lunch at the F2F, and it is only in chatting with Jeni after the meeting that it came back to me.
> Given that the AB is currently looking at modifying the Process, and that there's an AC meeting next month which some of the TAG will be attending, I think that if there is agreement in the group for some change we should convey these ideas to the AB quickly.
> Rather than a sweeping change which I don't believe is needed here, I think that a few small improvements aimed mostly at increasing a broader community engagement (both from the AC and beyond) are all that is needed. The proposals I make below are therefore simple evolutions, and are further tailored towards requiring minimal infrastructural change (so that they can be implemented pretty much right away).
> The three suggested changes are:
>      • Make the list of candidates public so that they can be publicly discussed (this not being the case prevents some communities from following their normal decision process, e.g. Mozilla). This should be trivial to implement (a simple W3C news items would be enough). I don't think that this requires a change to the Process, it's probably just a W3M decision to make.
>      • Use preferential voting so as to produce a fairer, better-informed vote (the current system encourages voting for only one candidate if you strongly favour her). In order to avoid an endless debate as to which voting system is best, I suggest simply using the preferential voting system that WBS already supports. Implementation-wise, I believe that this is a simple matter of picking a different WBS question type. This probably requires a small change to Process since it describes the vote. That said, if there's a way to weasel it past without changing the Process I for one won't complain :)
>      • Open a public-tag-elections mailing list on which anyone in the community can ask candidates to state their position on specific topics, and where candidates are invited to post a description of the work that they plan on doing if elected to the TAG. Again, where implementation is concerned a list is lightweight. I don't think we need to place any requirements on candidates to participate there (it's up to whether they actually want to win…) so that no Process change ought to be required.
> Unless this proves to be massively contentious, I would like to request that this be put on the agenda for a call very soon (this week or next). If we have consensus, I am happy to shepherd this to the AB and if needed to discuss it at the AC meeting.
> Community input on this is very welcome!
> (Links below Member-only, sorry.)
> [0] http://www.w3.org/mid/2B18A25C-F0DD-4C54-BE4C-F2670ED5DE2F@berjon.com
> [1] Henry: http://www.w3.org/mid/f5b7h00mazd.fsf@calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk
>      Tim:   http://www.w3.org/mid/410DC944-1C99-489F-AE61-485110D1AB58@w3.org
Received on Monday, 23 April 2012 15:18:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:44 UTC