Re: Summary of TAG resolutions on Director-Free Process proposals

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:17 AM Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:

> ...A frequent feature of these objections is that there is a group of
> stakeholders at W3C who want to do something that may not be within the
> orthodoxy of current browser thinking.  It is not unusual for the
> objections to come from browser vendors.
>
I would like to explicitly object to the undercurrent of demonization of
"browser vendors" that runs through this response.

> Today - and I expect for the future - individuals from browsers are
> overrepresented (measured by % of membership) on the TAG.  Of 9
> non-Director seats, browser vendors have 44% (Samsung, Mozilla, Google, and
> Apple).   Of elected seats - which will be all seats once we drop
> appointments - browser vendors have 50% (Mozilla, Google, and Apple).  W3C
> Membership is quite diverse - nowhere near 44/50% of our members work for
> browser vendors. In this measure, today's AB is somewhat more diverse than
> the TAG, but browser representation tends to be high on the AB as well.
> Overall, I think that is a good thing that we have high browser
> participation on these senior councils.  But it emphasizes my concern that
> we need to ensure that someone is accountable to the other communities who
> are trying to start new work.
>
>  I'm not sure what you are trying to truly state here, other than
something to the effect of "browser vendors aren't the only members of the
W3C, but appear to be the most engaged, and spend the most effort
participating in the TAG."  That seems hardly surprising, since clearly
those very same companies are the ones who are, in fact, most engaged in
building the shape of the entire web platform.

ASs for "browser representation tends to be high on the AB as well," I am
left with two thoughts - first, if this is offensive then you should be
pleased that the effects of STV seem to be clear; it seems to be difficult
if not impossible to continue to have representatives from more than two
core browser vendors on the AB.  Secondly, I again see this as no surprise;
the direction of the W3C has been critically important to our business - a
business that means we sink incredible amounts of money into providing a
platform for the web, as do my colleagues at other browsers.  Should we not
be interested in lending our assistance to this?

As someone who has worked for multiple browser vendors, I am especially
irritated by the insinuation that we don't feel any accountability to other
communities who are trying to start new work.  Indeed, we have spent a
tremendous amount of effort trying to improve our own "new work" processes,
and ensuring that we are not asking for any more accountability in spending
the W3C's resources than we are happily ensuring in our own efforts.

Entirely aside from this issue, I would register again that I have grave
concerns on the TAG Appointment Council on principle, disagree strongly
with the makeup of it, and I also have considerable concerns about the
Objection Decision Council.