- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:39:26 +0200
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYh+kvvTzQS0-BKBnWitxmQSbuDLne7_bfov+ar6KKNAatA@mail.gmail.com>
On 24 April 2012 16:20, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote: > Larry, > > 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. > While individual creativity should be encouraged, teamwork should be stressed in all areas of the W3C. I strongly believe that all the members of the TAG work extremely hard and, from that effort, make a huge difference (to the group, to the web, and to the world). Perhaps that is not acknowledged enough. However, imho, both in business and open source, a team effort often produces the best results. > > 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. > > Cheers, > > Jeni > > [1] http://www.w3.org/community/opentag/ > -- > Jeni Tennison > http://www.jenitennison.com > > >
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2012 15:40:04 UTC