- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:49:22 -0400
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
- CC: "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
On 06/30/2014 11:13 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: > > The rule in question is small and simple, and altering it in the Process > is a rather straightforward, well-defined change. I think that it would > be beneficial for the AB to get into the habit of making such small, > well-defined changes to the Process on a regular basis (whenever required). The rules in question is defined here: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AB-TAG-constraints One obvious solution is to drop one or more constraints. More focused alternatives that may be worth considering: 1) Increase the limits to two. Addresses the two recent, and one not so recent (tbray) cases. Keeps these groups fairly diverse. 2) Change the constraints to only be evaluated at appointment/election time, thereby allowing anybody who was previously elected to complete their term. Also addresses the known cases. While it doesn't place an upper limit on company participation, it does effectively put a strict time limit on deviations from the policy. Personally, I don't see a need for these constraints; but like Robin I share a preference for small, incremental changes. - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 16:50:33 UTC