- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:50:31 -0400
- To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
- CC: "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
[ Bcc public-w3process ] On the one hand, as long as some set of TAG participants are elected by Members, I suspect some see (marginal?) value in limiting the number of participants from an organization. OTOH, I think Consortium processes actually retard the growth of the Web when those processes prohibit or limit willing and capable people from directly contributing to Web standards. I realize at least some (small?) set of TAG members have a personal preference to work in a small group (and of course there are some advantages to doing so), but besides the issue with the current structure restricting the set of qualified participants, I think the TAG's current structure is suboptimal for a number of other reasons. Here are some of them, and I believe all of them could be addressed by the group being a `real` Working Group. * Publication hacks - since the TAG apparently can't publish `real` Recommendations, they get WGs to publish their specs (NB: WebApps' draft charter includes two specs that are being led by TAG participants and proposed to be jointly published <http://www.w3.org/2014/06/webapps-charter.html#coordination>). * Term limits - as the group does more and more spec work, having a 2-year limit can be disruptive to the completion of a document. * Voting - instead of spending time and energy on voting, we could divert that energy to getting the `best` people involved and actually doing work. * Charter with clear scope and deliverables. * IP clarity - extending IP commitments to the participants' organization (rather than the individuals) would be clearer and broader and this is especially important as the group produces `real` Recommendations. * Eliminate a 1-off group - using a WG structure would simplify the Process Document (i.e. eliminate all text related to the TAG). TAG members - would any of you stop participating in your areas of interest of this group was a Working Group? -AB -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Forced Resignation Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:51:15 +0000 Resent-From: www-tag@w3.org Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 05:50:17 -0700 From: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> To: www-tag@w3.org List <www-tag@w3.org> CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> 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. Regards
Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 14:51:06 UTC