- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 16:38:04 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- cc: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On 30/06/2014 16:36 , Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>> Given that the TAG is able to occasionally vote on matters, I could
>> picture a scenario where multiple members from the same w3c member
>> organization, may not be ideal.
>
> Just like for working groups, if a *formal* vote is called for, then you can
> have a restriction of one vote per organisation rather than per person.
>
> I can't, however, recall the TAG taking a formal vote.
>
> This rule is protecting against a problem that hasn't happened, and that does
> not seem very likely to happen. What's more, if it *does* happen and we see a
> company with multiple TAG representatives acting in concert to bad effect,
> then all it takes is for the next AC vote to wipe them out.
Well, you can't say that the rule is useless if you don't know if the
non-presence of the problem is because of the rule or not :)
But clearly this rule won't prevent a coalition of companies with the same
interest to have a dominant position, and this would be far less visible
then having multiple representants from the same organisation (as you
pointed out).
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 20:38:05 UTC