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

Re: TAG productivity, elections, and httpRange-14

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:08:54 +0200
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <21B4714E-ACD2-474A-851F-FBA809ACB4C7@berjon.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
On Apr 24, 2012, at 00:27 , Larry Masinter wrote:
> -1 to bringing Robin's proposal about election 'reform' to the AB or AC.  How the TAG gets elected is irrelevant if in two elections there were (a) exactly as many volunteers as open slots (when I got elected), and  (b) three candidates for two slots. If there were lots of candidates, the election method might matter more (although not much, since the TAG has no authority, only responsibility.)

I find your objection strange, to say the least. The whole point of making these very minor tweaks to the election process is to make it possible for more candidates to apply, because it makes it possible for them to actually win. The current election process means that the primary factor in winning is name recognition. That's just daft. It gives an inordinate advantage to people who've been visible to the AC for a long time (such as myself) and doesn't make it possible for someone less known to the AC but with strong proposals to run on their ideas about Web architecture.

So it's unclear to me why you would lament a dearth of candidate in the same breath you use to support a system that discourages new, possibly usefully disruptive candidacies.

> I'm definitely concerned about "how the TAG operates", but think it better to focus on how the TAG can actually produce what the TAG chartered to do. 

Changing the electoral process to make it more open to change is just one small and very simple part. It's not enough on its own but it can be a component in a larger change to how the TAG operates.

I'm happy to talk about changing how the TAG operates but that discussion cannot be framed either by httpRange-14 or by what we're chartered to do. Framing it inside hr14 doesn't make sense because that's just one issue and there is no modification we can make to how the TAG operates that would magically solve it without also losing important aspects of a consensus-based model; solving hr14 can only happen inside hr14. And framing it inside what the charter says gets things the wrong way around. We should figure out what the best way is for us to operate so as to be the most useful to our community. If it happens to work within the bounds of the charter, great; if it doesn't, then we ask to change it. Constraining ourselves a priori on the grounds of some administrative document doesn't make much sense to me.

Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2012 10:09:25 UTC

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