Re: TAG productivity, elections, and httpRange-14

On 24 April 2012 12:08, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

I think hr14 created so much debate partly because it was philosophical in
nature.  Some think the web is broken and we need to fix it, and others
think the web is great and we just need to keep on going to help it reach
its full potential.

There's probably no 100% right answer, but imho, given that we are sill in
the midst of exponential uptake, the TAG should be leaning towards the
latter view, in order to achieve its mission.


> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>
>
>