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

Re: TAG productivity, elections, and httpRange-14

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:20:31 +0100
Message-Id: <0B3FE2AC-EA24-4CD2-8F50-285AD64BE35A@jenitennison.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>

On 24 Apr 2012, at 14:01, Larry Masinter wrote:
> During the last TAG election, I did try to solicit nominations for TAG membership with those skills. I didn’t ask individual candidates – I asked W3C AC reps (who are authorized to nominate members) who also participate in IETF, pointing out the need.  I think it would be also useful to have more TAG members familiar with IETF protocols, documents, and architecture, as many of the security and identity protocols are developed in IETF.

It would. I think we should be actively trying to persuade such people to stand, and we should be asking the AC to vote for them if they think similarly.

> I didn’t come up with anyone willing to nominate anyone, or willing to run.

If you asked people, did they say why they weren't willing to run?

> It sounds nice to say that you want to offer more “open” discussion during TAG elections. But as with most things, every perceived benefit also has a cost.
> 	• Making TAG elections more like the political election circus, full of innuendo and character assassination, doesn’t seem like it would increase the attractiveness.    To be honest, I don’t know for certain whether asking candidates to post a public statement or participate in pre-election discussions would be somehow put off, but I think so. The TAG deep-ending on other issues might also be part of the issue.
> 	• Statements made during the election period should carry less weight, not more, than someone’s record as a participant in open standards deliberations.  Those who want to know about candidate Carvalho for the TAG can look at the public mail archive:
> http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?keywords=&hdr-1-name=from&hdr-1-query=Carvalho&index-grp=Public_FULL&index-type=g&type-index=
> and can see contributions over the years, at least in W3C.

Extrapolating from myself (as I normally do), putting aside all the logistic downsides in being a member of the TAG, the one thing that would stop me running is the feeling that I wouldn't be able to make any difference to the group, in terms of its output or its direction, because it is too stagnant. I think that asking candidates to post a public statement about their goals sends a clear message that the TAG is open to active participants who want to shape the group and make a difference, and that this is attractive for the kind of people from whom the TAG would benefit.

I think that the AC will naturally vote for people based on their full range of contributions and not just those statements. But statements of intent are still useful, not least in helping candidates to think about what they are committing to.

There plainly are people out there who want to work on web architecture [1]. The changes that Robin's suggested around the election process are small changes that could have an impact in attracting them to do so within the TAG. Or they might not be enough. Personally, I think they are worth a shot.



[1] http://www.w3.org/community/opentag/
Jeni Tennison
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2012 14:21:12 UTC

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