w3c
Forbid the Team from AB/TAG service
The Team already has a clearly defined role in the process. Being responsible for appointments to the TAG, for instance, would make service on the TAG a bit of a conflict. Another example is the role of the Team in Councils, for which clearer rules would be clarifying.
I believe that this was a bit of a problem in the distant past, but during my involvement with the organization, this has never come up. This is offered as a clarification, not as a reaction to a particular situation.
This is part 2 of the recommendations in #921.
I think we have to think of a situation where this rule would be needed. At the moment, the team wouldn't think of running, and we wouldn't think of voting for them. To be useful, you have to conceive of an instance where they think they should run and the electorate thinks that they should be elected, and we need a rule to stop that happening. Can anyone?
Many unthinkable things have happened in the political worlds in recent years, so I'm not sure I'm against thinking it through. But I don't think the roles of the AB, TAG or Board should be filled by Team members - they should be working together - but I do think that we need to navigate carefully because I do think there are some roles that COULD be filled by Team members in some extraordinary circumstances (e.g. Chair of a CG or WG).
I do think it's really important to not characterize this prohibition as "cannot participate", though.
Ah, OK, agreed, that a change of affiliation to the team should cause something to happen.
@dwsinger Something already does happen: we trigger an affiliation change election. I think that’s good enough for the change of affiliation case.
I would note the AB currently has a Team co-chair, and would suggest that should be considered.
The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/929, and agreed to the following:
RESOLVED: Mark this as proposed to close
The full IRC log of that discussion
<brent> Github: https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/929<Ian> Brent: My observation is that there's not yet consensus to address the topic through this pull request.
<Ian> ...see issue 921 https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/921
<Ian> -> https://github.com/w3c/process/issues/921
<Ian> Brent: On that issue I'm not seeing discussion arrive at a point where people are clearly saying "here's what we should do."
<Ian> PLH: I think this PR is wrong on several grounds. Of the AC wants to nominate someone on the Team to be on the AC, they should be able to do so, and if the AC as a whole wants them in, they should be able to elect them.
<Ian> ...a second question is whether the Team should be able to nominate someone from the Team, but those nominations are also subject to approval outside the team.
<Ian> ...so I don't think we need to constrain these choices.
<Ian> ...also, this has not been a problem ever. We have more important things to fix in the process.
<Ian> Ian: +1 to addressing the question of balance of power in a process overhaul. Don't need to address it at this time.
<Ian> Brent: In light of discussion today, I would like to put "Propose to close" and see who argues against this.
<Ian> ...this conversation will be added to the PR.
<Ian> RESOLVED: Mark this as proposed to close
Closing this PR in accordance with the conversation during the last Process CG meeting with the intention that conversation on this topic continue in Issue #921