Re: A proposal for revising the rules on TAG Participation

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 8:37 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

> Hi Alex,
>
>
> On 07/15/2014 09:12 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
>
>> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 9:50 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org
>> <mailto:david@dbooth.org>> wrote:
>>     On 07/11/2014 07:37 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>         On July 10, 2014 at 8:32:38 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile
>>         (chaals@yandex-team.ru <mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru>) wrote:
>>                 I would be interested to hear of things that Marcos
>>                 would have
>>
>>             done but didn't because he was required to resign, and whether
>>             anything would have mitigated the situation except changing
>> the
>>             rules.
>>
>>         Well, let see. I set up the TAG GitHub account and was happily
>> doing
>>         API reviews. I was also starting to rewrite the architecture of
>> the
>>         Web document with Henry, but had to stop. I couldn't justify the
>>         time
>>         and travel commitment to my employer (Mozilla) if I wasn't
>>         officially
>>         on the TAG.  [ . . . . ]
>>
>>     That's an interesting data point.  Thanks for sharing it Marcos.
>>     But apart from demonstrating the obvious loss of a good person
>>     making good contributions, at the same time it demonstrates the fact
>>     that your employer's agenda trumped your personal desire to do good
>>     and contribute to the Web.
>>
>> That's an incredibly strange intepretation. Mozilla continues to do good
>> and contribute to the web. Mozilla continues to support TAG members
>> (Dave and prevously Anne). But they're not funding Marcos' travel to TAG
>> meetings as a part of that and, thanks to membership, ahve no reasonable
>> expectation that his travel would be effective if they /did/ fund it.
>>
>
> Agreed.  I do not dispute any of that.  But the fact remains that his
> employer's agenda trumped his personal desire to contribute to the TAG:
> Marcos stopped contributing to the TAG because of his employer's decision.


Again, it's really strange way of looking at it. His change of
employment *caused
a change in his membership on the TAG.* The consequences of that change
seem like predictable outcomes from where I'm sitting. I'm not sure why
you're phrasing this as something that Mozilla did, it's *something the W3C
did* and which had predictable, negative outcomes.

What do you think Mozilla should have done differently? Why do you have an
expectation that they should support travel to meetings for employees who
are not members of the groups in question? Or is the point that Marcos and
Dominic shouldn't have taken a better jobs at a different member firms in
order to avoid this situation from occurring?

Put another way, if an employee came to you and said "I'm going to keep
>> going to these meetings but can't really participate as an equal" what
>> would you do?
>>
>
> I'm not blaming Marcos, nor am I blaming his management.  That wasn't my
> point.  I certainly would have done the same as Marcos, and I probably
> would have done the same as his manager if I were his manager.
>
>
>
>>     No matter how well-meaning one is, it simply is not possible to
>>     maintain neutrality (or the appearance thereof) when one's food and
>>     mortgage are paid by one's employer.
>>
>> You appear deeply unfamiliar with both Mozilla and Google.
>>
>
> I specifically said that I was not singling out any specific company or
> individual.  We are discussing a proposed general rule change -- not a
> special exception for Mozilla and Google employees.
>
>
>  More to the
>> point, I'd go out on a limb and say that if you think the people you
>> elected to be on the TAG are, in general, sock puppets, I recommend you
>> work to strip the TAG of even its ceremonial authority.
>>
>
> I do not think that at all!  Quite the opposite!  My comments were about
> the dangers of making a *rule* change -- not about any company or
> individual.


This is absolutely about individuals and specific firms. The set of people
who can be competent TAG members is, as others have noted, quite small. The
set of sponsor firms is fixed at the set of members. So if this isn't about
specific individuals and companies...well, then I don't know what we're
even discussing.

 I have personally seen the highest levels of integrity in many of the
> individuals I have come to know on the TAG and in other W3C circles.  And I
> think the TAG's rule *has* caused a visible loss to the W3C's work.  But I
> think the dangers of a rule change, which could cause a different, less
> visible harm (but not necessarily less damaging), still exist and must be
> considered.
>
>
>
>> If, on the other hand, you look at our body of recent work, you'll see
>> it's largely the TAG putting the breaks on (and constructive comments)
>> towards MOZILLA AND GOOGLE sponsored work in various WGs.
>>
>> Categorical statements that can't be reckoned with reality deserve to be
>> ignored categorically.
>>
>
> Reality is that: (a) no individual can be expected to be completely
> neutral when being paid substantial sums by his/her employer;


Web architecture is also not a cloistered pursuit. I can assure you that
being close to implementers is an asset when discussing the set of likely
and possible solutions.


> (b) companies can and do manipulate the good intentions of their
> employees, whether or not such manipulation is consciously intended;


As does all other life experience. The members elect TAG members, one
hopes, for the judgement which is a product of said experience.


> and (c) even the *appearance* of domination by one company could be
> harmful to the W3C's work.


That argument demands a discussion of why this is somehow more true for the
TAG than for WGs where specs are actually written and who have nearly all
the power in any specific design discussion.


> Regardless our good intentions, let's please not ignore that reality in
> our desire to address the loss of a good contributor.
> FWIW, individuals I have known on the TAG -- and in other W3C roles --
> have had some of the highest personal integrity that I've seen.  (And in my
> experience, those with such high integrity also freely admit that they
> *cannot* be entirely neutral in such situations.)  The W3C -- and the world
> -- have certainly benefited as a result.  But that does not eliminate the
> danger that I'm pointing out.
>
> Again, I apologize if any of my comments sounded like any sort of personal
> slight.  They were *not* intended that way.  They were simply intended as a
> reminder of the inherent dangers that must be considered in contemplating
> such a rule change -- dangers that do not disappear even when the
> individuals involved have the highest dedication and integrity:
>
>
>
>>     Companies routinely manipulate the good intentions of their
>>     employees to benefit the company's agenda.  (And I do not mean to be
>>     singling out any particular company or individual here.)
>>
>>     Stacking a decision-making body with very likable, talented and
>>     well-meaning individuals is the most effective way to do it.  The
>>     fact that those individuals may honestly attempt to be neutral does
>>     *not* mean that the net effect is neutral.  And again, I'm not
>>     saying that any particular company is consciously trying to stack
>>     the TAG.  But conscious or not, that can be the effect.
>>
>>     Personally, I think it would be okay to relax the TAG's rule
>>     slightly to allow two individuals from the same organization to
>>     serve temporarily and/or with the approval of the AB.   But beyond
>>     that I think there would be too much danger of undue dominance by
>>     one organization, regardless of how well meaning the individuals are.
>>
>>     David Booth
>>
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>