W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2014

RE: A proposal for revising the rules on TAG Participation

From: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 01:07:31 +0000
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1405127250377.7470@domenicdenicola.com>
From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>

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

This seems fine to me: I myself am not sure I would vote for two people from the same company, given the opportunity. What I wonder is whether we should allow your personal opposition to prevent others in the AC from expressing their preferences.

Let's say that the AC elected two Googlers to the TAG, fully knowing their affiliations ahead of time. Presumably, those whose personal preference was toward having two Googlers outvoted those who were personally opposed. But you are saying that those supporting the outcome of the vote should be overruled, in favor of the opposition?

(Changing affiliations makes this into a different question, but you are -1ing even the aspect of the proposal which allows two same-affiliation members to be elected, and not just the part that makes affiliation changes less traumatic.)

In summary: It's important to recognize that supporting Noah's revision is *not* the same as supporting two Googlers (or two Mozillans, or whichever) on the TAG. It is supporting *the ability for the AC to choose to elect two same-affiliation candidates to the TAG*. These are very different things. The power is still with the AC to elect whoever they choose; this simply removes restrictions that currently make some choices invalid.

Received on Saturday, 12 July 2014 01:08:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:03 UTC