Re: Forced Resignation

On 2014-06 -30, at 10:14, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> wrote:

> 
> On 30 Jun 2014 14:52, "Melvin Carvalho" <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 30 June 2014 14:50, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> As you may know, Google recently had the good sense and taste to hire fellow TAG member Dominic Denicola. W3C rules insist that, despite being individually elected as representatives of the membership, our employment situation is more important to the membership than our capacity to make meaningful contributions at the TAG. Therefore one of us must resign.
> >>
> >> As my term ends soonest, I will be stepping down from my position so that Dominic can continue the good work of helping to encourage extensibility in the web platform. I will, however, continue to attend meetings through the end of my elected term (Jan '15) in protest of what, frankly, is appallingly poor organizational design. Evidence of this piles up: last year we also lost productive TAG members to vagaries of employment interaction with W3C policy.
> >>
> >> If the AB's goal with this misbegotten policy were to prevent multiple individuals from a firm from influencing the TAG's decisions, I invite them to bar me from meetings post my removal. Were it not so, I invite them to change the policy.
> >
> >
> > As a bystander that is interested in the ongoing work of the TAG It was unclear to me which policy change you are in favour of
> >
> > Do you think a w3c member organization should have 2 seats on the TAG *indefinitely* or *until one term ends*
> 
> I think that the AC and AB need to decide if the TAG -- which writes no specs and wields no direct power, and which elects individuals and not organisations -- should be organised around member organisations in the first place.
> 
> Do you have reason to think the TAG should be organised this way?
> 
> 

Well it isn't organized around organizations. 
It is organized around people.

The rule I assume is to prevent a company though becoming a dominant force, or appearing to.
While we can discuss the relative merits of this rule, I'd point out that Alex you are at a company which others could certainly imagine ending up in a dominant position. It has have a lot of good people and often acquires other companies which have good people. This would be good discussion for the AB or the AC.

I agree personally that you would be a big loss for the TAG.

> > Thanks for your contributions, I follow your work
> >  
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards
> >
> >