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

Re: A proposal for revising the rules on TAG Participation

From: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 18:05:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CANr5HFW45Ai0-1ry_ct4eXN0ashx_bKDvcU+E_TbEW6XMF+G3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Cc: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
This is a very strange way to phrase it. Are you opposed to Google
employing 2 individually-elected representatives but not, e.g., having 2?


On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>
> 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
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 01:06:20 UTC

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