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

Re: A proposal for revising the rules on TAG Participation

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 21:43:06 -0400
Message-ID: <53C092AA.60003@arcanedomain.com>
To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Note also that there is an obvious way of splitting my proposal, I.e. to 
stick with the limit of one, but to allow up to two until the next election 
when affiliation changes cause trouble.

FWIW, I agree with Domenic: if the AC chooses up to two I think that's OK. 
I'm pretty sure that the conflict that got me seated involved Tim Bray and 
Norm Walsh, who wound up at Sun after some change of affiliation. I can't 
think of two TAG members who would have brought more value serving together 
than Tim and Norm, and I know that neither would have put his Sun 
affiliation ahead of the needs of the community. Grateful as I was for the 
opportunity to serve, Tim Bray was a significant loss for the TAG IMO.

Noah

On 7/11/2014 9:07 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> 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 01:43:28 UTC

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