Re: A proposal for revising the rules on TAG Participation

On 4 July 2014 18:23, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com> wrote:

>  I've been thinking about the recent controversy for the last few days. I
> think there's merit on both sides of the question, but on balance it seems
> that the Web community might benefit if the rules on TAG participation were
> somewhat relaxed. Specifically, I propose that the following be considered
> for the TAG (but not necessarily for the AB). The essence of the change I
> propose is
>
> <current rules [1]>
> 2.5.1 Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Participation
> Constraints
>
> Given the few seats available on the Advisory Board and the TAG, and in
> order to ensure that the diversity of W3C Members is represented:
>
>    - A Member organization is permitted at most one participant on the
>    TAG.
>    - A Member organization is permitted at most one participant on the AB.
>    - An individual MUST NOT participate on both the TAG and the AB.
>
> If, for whatever reason, these constraints are not satisfied (e.g.,
> because a TAG or AB participant changes jobs), one participant MUST cease
> TAG or AB participation until the situation has been resolved. If after 30
> days the situation has not been resolved, the Chair will declare one
> participant's seat to be vacant. When more than one individual is involved,
> the verifiable random selection procedure
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#random>
> described below will be used to choose one person for continued
> participation.
> </current rules>
>
> <proposed revision>
> 2.5.1 Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Participation
> Constraints
>
> Given the few seats available on the Advisory Board and the TAG, and in
> order to ensure that the diversity of W3C Members is represented:
>
>    - An Member organization is permitted at most one participant two
>    participants on the TAG. However, if a change of affiliation of an
>    already seated member causes this limit to be violated, up to three members
>    from the same organization may participate until results of the next TAG
>    election become effective.
>    - A Member organization is permitted at most one participant on the AB.
>    - An individual MUST NOT participate on both the TAG and the AB.
>
> If, for whatever reason, these constraints are not satisfied (e.g.,
> because a TAG or AB participant changes jobs), one participant MUST cease
> TAG or AB participation until the situation has been resolved. If after 30
> days the situation has not been resolved, the Chair will declare one
> participant's seat to be vacant. When more than one individual is involved,
> the verifiable random selection procedure
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#random>
> described below will be used to choose one person for continued
> participation.
> <proposed revision>
>
> I would love to see a change like this made in time for Alex to resume his
> membership, or else that special dispensation be made in his case if the
> change is approved.
>
> BTW: the deletion of the word "member" is because employees of non-member
> organizations can serve as invited experts (as I did after I left IBM). I
> believe the limits for both AB and TAG should apply to employees of any
> organizations, not just W3C members. In principle this change should IMO be
> made whether or not the limits are relaxed; in practice it doesn't seem
> urgent.
>

-1

I consider myself a neutral, but what it's worth ... (if anything) ...

After careful consideration, I would personally be opposed to Google,
having two seats on the TAG.


>
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AB-TAG-constraints
>