Re: Suggested response to the Yandex "cannot iive with loosening of TAG participation requiremens"

> On Apr 14, 2015, at 16:24 , Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
> 
> On 14/04/15 09:26, David Singer wrote:
> 
>> No, sorry.  That could lead to a situation where a single company has more than one representative for up to two years, which is too long in my opinion.
> 
> What you want could lead to a situation where AC's vote is not
> followed. I find that issue far worse.

Many electoral systems have rules about when you have to resign a seat. E.g. for national systems, a change of citizenship can trigger that. For local bodies, a change of domicile to outside the region represented can trigger that (�Representatives must maintain their primary residency in the district represented.�)
 
> I completely fail seeing the issue behind a Member temporarily having
> two seats. We have a ton of WGs having multiple representatives for
> some large Members, and there's no problem because we focus on skills.
> Why would the TAG be different? Same people, same spirit, same skills,
> and better controlled by TimBL himself.

Because if a company feels under-represented compared to another, in a regular WG, they can nominate as many as they like.  No election required.  The situation is quite different.


I am sorry you can�t see why people may have valid reasons for concern.  They have been laid out multiple times.

I know people who have worked for companies that are, in fact, highly directive of the positions that they take. I�m not willing to name the companies, but I would be surprised if most people cannot think of one.  �OK, the W3C wants you to act as an individual expert. Tough. I am paying your salary, I am paying you to attend the meeting, and you will do what you�re told as long as you work for me.�

As said before, even absent that, people unconsciously move toward conforming to the groups they are members of.


There are other ways to avoid a problem here � e.g. make the TAG so much larger that it�s harder to swamp. But that, IMHO, would make it less effective, less able to move fast, and actually reduce the amount that gets done.


I am still willing to defend the proposal:
* it avoids special elections, which are tedious
* it avoids people having to resign in the middle of some project, or after having served too short a period to get going
* by waiting for the next election, the situation may well resolve itself (there is a good chance � 75% �  that one or both of the two seats expires at the next election anyway)
* the average �double representation� period is 6 months, and the maximum 12, which are not so long


David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.