Director-free TAG

[frivoal]

This lets the TAG pick its own chair and replaces the Director appointment with appointment by a new TAG Appointment Committee (and does a few minor related cleanups).

[torgo]

Just discussing this in today's TAG f2f. Even though this proposal has come out of a TAG session originally, we think it can be improved.

Firstly, yes the TAG agrees that we should be able to pick our own chair(s).

Thinking of the purpose of appointments, they are intended to fill a gap - in expertise, background, experience, or demographics - that may exist after an election. There is also a value to having continuity - which is arguably what the appointed TAG members have more been used for historically. On the flip side, continuity should be balanced by fresh perspectives as needed. We strongly feel this needs to be preserved.

We think it might be more effective to formalize that it's the Team that appoints the seat but that the Team is charged with reaching out to the W3C community (including the TAG), to come to these decisions on appointments. The Team will have a mandate to seek input from an explicit set of constituencies, and weigh it, in order to make a decision.

This saves the need to convene a large group that potentially changes each year, who then have to spend time meeting and seeking consensus. It also reduces the risk of the nomination process becoming a shadow election, if the nomination committee is composed primarily of member representatives.

Further to this, we should explore the idea that appointed members put themselves forward for election during the election periods that coincide with their appointments expiring. This will encourage appointed members to go through the same process as elected members on the TAG.

In summary, we think more discussion is needed before we make a process change here. Maybe we can discuss at TPAC and come to a clearer consensus?

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Director-free TAG.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> subtopic: Director-free TAG
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//pull/611
<plh> fantasai: this is based on discussion within the AB and the TAG
<plh> florian: couple of minor words smithing
<plh> ... so far, the Director chooses the chair of the TAG. in future, the TAG will
<plh> ... Director appoints 3 members of the TAG
<plh> ... replacement is to have an appointment committee
<plh> ... committee would start after the election result
<plh> ... committee is a subset of the TAG
<plh> ... (not for reelection)
<plh> ... subset of WG chairs
<plh> ... with some filtering mechanisms to take active ones
<plh> ... with a team contact
<plh> ... see details in pull request
<plh> ... we can iterate some more
<plh> ... there are remaining concerns about this being complicated
<plh> ... just got feedback from the TAG that it might be too complicated
<plh> ... but it wasn't the direction of the AB
<plh> ... not proposed for merger today
<plh> +
<plh> q+
<plh> q?
<cwilso> q+ to suggest we should have TAG+AB members meet (Dan suggested at TPAC) to discuss
<wseltzer> q-
<plh> q-
<dsinger> q+ to talk about rationale
<plh> ack cw
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to suggest we should have TAG+AB members meet (Dan suggested at TPAC) to discuss
<plh> cwilso: Dan commented in the pull request yesterday to meet at TPAC to discuss
<plh> ... need to get the TAG and the AB together for a direction
<plh> ... concerned about complexity but that doesn't make it wrong
<florian> q+
<plh> ... I do like that the TAG is looking for optimization
<plh> ack ds
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to talk about rationale
<plh> dsinger: +1 on being complex
<plh> ack florian
<plh> florian: would be good to speak with the TAG again
<plh> ... but we had at least one AB meeting in Quebec and one in Fukuoka
<plh> ... present text includes TAG viewpoint as much as AB viewpoint
<plh> fantasai: let's take the text for review. schedule a session at TPAC
<florian> q+
<plh> ... it seems that we might also want to have a discussion with the TAG minus the appointed members
<plh> florian: while this is a fair amount of text, I don't think it's that complex
<plh> ... something that appears that isn't too complex like dismall process have caused a lot of details :(
<plh> ... here, it needs to be in sync with the election but before the start of the term
<plh> ... delays will make things longer
<plh> q+
<wseltzer> plh: time is elastic
<wseltzer> ... in the council experiments, things have taken much longer than anticipated
<wseltzer> ... I'd encourage TAG and AB to meet at TPAC; they don't need Process CG
<wseltzer> ... Also, we should be aware we already send a deluge of emails to the AC already;
<wseltzer> fantasai: we're selecting from among chairs, not ACV
<wseltzer> s/ACV/AC/
<dsinger> q+ to suggest we bounce this to the AB+TAG
<plh> florian: action is for everyone to review the text and the chairs oif the AB and TAG to convene a conversation
<fantasai> ACTION: Everyone to review text of PR #611
<fantasai> ACTION: AB + TAG organize a joint session at TPAC, possibly without appointed members
<plh> ack fantasai
<plh> fantasai: one thing to tweak might be to have the appointed members to stand for election at their next turn
<plh> ... appointment committee might still appoint them if they win but that will look weird
<dsinger> q+
<plh> ack ds
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to suggest we bounce this to the AB+TAG and to
<plh> dsinger: let's open an issue on limits of consecutive terms
<plh> q+
<fantasai> [temporarily suspended scribing]
<plh> ack plh
<fantasai> fantasai: so let's leave this to AB + TAG chairs to organize
<fantasai> fantasai: and Process CG should review wording to make sure that if we go with this direction, we are happy with the wording

[fantasai]

The Process CG discussed this on the call today.

• We opened Continuity of TAG appointments #613 to discuss the continuity of TAG appointments.
• We are requesting the TAG and the AB to arrange a joint session at TPAC to discuss what approach they want to take and instruct the Process CG appropriately.

[dwsinger]

We think it might be more effective to formalize that it's the Team that appoints the seat but that the Team is charged with reaching out to the W3C community (including the TAG), to come to these decisions on appointments. The Team will have a mandate to seek input from an explicit set of constituencies, and weigh it, in order to make a decision.

Further to this, we should explore the idea that appointed members put themselves forward for election during the election periods that coincide with their appointments expiring. This will encourage appointed members to go through the same process as elected members on the TAG.

At the August F2F the AB had the same sense; that we can get much of the effect of the TAG appointment committee by asking the team to consult, but avoid a lot of the complexity. And that term limits, and standing for election, may be a good way to ensure that we really are balancing the TAG for diversity, including skill, knowledge, perspective, etc.

Something like

---

TAG appointments are made by the team, after consulting with the chairs and the members of the TAG not involved in the concurrent election. TAG appointments should be used to balance diversity, including diversity of technical background, knowledge, and skill sets.

A person may hold at most two consecutive appointed terms. To be eligible for a second consecutive appointed term, the candidate must have stood in the election for that term. There is no limit to the number of non-consecutive terms a person may be appointed to.

---

How much do we need to describe the expected consultation?

[frivoal]

The proposal adopted by the AB was that, similarly to the choice of AB chairs, the Team would consult with the TAG and propose appointees, but that these would have to be ratified by the TAG, not just that the Team alone could appoint. (In this context, “by the TAG” means mid-term members + newly elected members).

As for your second proposed paragraph, I think this is orthogonal to the question of who does the appointing, and is being handled in #613.

[dwsinger]

agreed, I forgot TAG ratification, and yes, term limits are separately tracked

[dwsinger]

Trying again. Keeping the term limits here so we can see an integrated text. Do we need to explain who gets to vote in the confirmation ballot, in any more detail than this?

---

The Team is responsible for nominating for appointment 3 of the participants to the Technical Architecture Group. This mechanism complements the election process. The nominations are formally made after the results of the election are known, and are are confirmed by secret ballot of the newly-formed TAG (after election), by majority vote.

The Team should use appointments to support a diverse and well-balanced TAG. The Team should consult with the participants of the current TAG whose terms are not expiring (elected or appointed), and with the Chairs of Working Groups, before and during the election period.

A person may hold at most two consecutive appointed terms. To be eligible for a second consecutive appointed term, the candidate must have stood in the election for that term. There is no limit to the number of non-consecutive terms a person may be appointed to.

[frivoal]

@dwsinger I do think we need a little bit more than that, PR incoming, will share soon.

[frivoal]

Pull request on pull requests are hard to do, so I updated the existing pull request by adding a commit. You can:

• look at this whole pull request to see what this would add to the Process in general to handle the director-free TAG, or
• just look at a63bb75 to see just the difference between TAG appointment committee and Team-appoints-TAG-ratifies (the diff is a little hard to read, as it is removing a lot), or
• just look at e841f13 for just the addition of term limits.

[mnot]

Should it be explicit that ratification takes place before announcement?

[frivoal]

I think it is already? In the next paragraph: “the Team should announce the ratified appointment […]”

[mnot]

Does the Team have to appoint three participants?

[frivoal]

Good question.
I think they ought to try, but they could fail to find the right number of suitable people, or, possibly more importantly, they could fail to get them all ratified… So I don't think we can strictly mandate it. I think the current wording works. It combines:

• the fact that the Team is responsible for getting 3
• the fact that vacant seats should be filled
• the fact that the team should get their appointment ratified before the start of the term

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Tag appointment.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<jeff> Subtopic: Tag appointment
<fantasai> i/Subtopic/RESOLVED: Land into DF branch and notify AB of the vote threshold question/
<jeff> Florian: The AB discussed TAG appointments and concurred that a committee was excessively complicated
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//pull/611
<jeff> ... recommended that the Team come up with appointees with TAG ratification
<jeff> Florian: I updated the PR
<jeff> ... reasonable to review text
<jeff> ... diff is complex
<jeff> ... PR also has AB resolution with term limits for appointees
<jeff> ... sense of the room was "2".
<jeff> ... open question whether for second term you needed to run and fail
<dsinger> q+ to talk about standing for election
<jeff> ... PR is simpler - just 2 terms
<jeff> ... PR updated yesterday
<jeff> ... should discuss today and merge in the future
<jeff> ... unless reviews are done
<jeff> ... I also propose that we land it into the actual process
<jeff> q+
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to support Florian, and (minor) response and to talk about standing for election
<jeff> David: On standing for election; not sure what to do about this
<jeff> ... Dan says we should explore this
<jeff> ... we mentioned in the AB meeting, but didn't conclude
<jeff> ... I like the progression: appointed; appointed and stand for election; elected
<jeff> Florian: A little awkward to require failing an election
<jeff> ... rather keep it simple
<jeff> Leonie: You think it is a simple limit on number of times appointed.
<jeff> Florian: Yes.
<fantasai> scribe+
<fantasai> Florian: After 2 terms, have to either win an election or sit out a term in order to be appointed again.
<fantasai> jeff: Addressing question of merging into Process
<fantasai> ... If we have a Process update before Director-free Process takes effect
<fantasai> ... might want to do that before merging
<florian> q?
<fantasai> ... Still have Director on board atm
<florian> q+
<jeff> Florian: I don't want to surprise the Director
<jeff> ... I agree with that sentiment
<jeff> ... I thought we had decided that we would progressively land pieces if they are ready
<jeff> ... also we are not yet adopting the process
<jeff> ... target is q1
<dsinger> q+ to suggest we pull into DF with an open "issue" inline on whether to require standing for election for the second term
<jeff> ... just staging for adoption
<jeff> ... final note: since it is "the Team", Timbl could continue; although it adds a ratification step
<jeff> David: I'm fine with pulling this into DF
<jeff> ... DF is supposed to be next year
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to suggest we pull into DF with an open "issue" inline on whether to require standing for election for the second term
<jeff> ... open issue whether candidates should be required to stand for election
<jeff> ... discuss Dan's point
<jeff> ... reasonably done and put into DF branch
<jeff> Florian: DF branch is "ideas"; I propose we put it into the main one
<jeff> q+
<jeff> ... landing it into DF is where it already is
<jeff> ... landing it is into the main branch
<jeff> ... but I don't insist that we do it today
<jeff> Fantasai: I agree with Florian
<jeff> ... we have started to pull DF into the next process branch
<jeff> ... we are moving whatever we can of DF into the process branch
<jeff> ... we've been keeping things in DF for years
<florian> q+
<jeff> ... time to bring into main branch because DF is the next process.
<wseltzer> +1 to focus on DF
<jeff> ... if we need a separate Process 2023, we can cherry-pick them into a separate update
<wseltzer> s/focus/keep focus/
<jeff> ... if we are landing it, we should land it into main branch
<florian> qq+
<jeff> David: I am lost. This is less mature than Council.
<Zakim> florian, you wanted to react to dsinger
<jeff> Florian: Let me explain what the DF branch is.
<jeff> ... it is an integration of all DF PRs merged together
<jeff> ... not those we have accepted; but those we have been working on
<jeff> ... probably hasty to land today
<jeff> ... but not soon
<jeff> ... so this PR is there already.
<fantasai> jeff: Thanks fantasai for clarification that we're focused on DF for next release of Process
<fantasai> ... maybe that was decided at a recent meeting that I missed
<fantasai> ... If we're doing that, and understanding how large a change to the Process DF is going to be
<fantasai> ... it might suggest a different way that we approach the work in this group to get that done
<fantasai> ... In particular, top-down, the most important thing we need to finalize to get DF done
<fantasai> ... what are the decisions we need to make?
<fantasai> ... drive it hard from that POV
<fantasai> ... We have TPAC coming up, some presentation on Process?
<fantasai> ... Might be worth sharing that 2023 is DF year for Process
<fantasai> ... And maybe identify what needs to be done, and use that as a call for action for people to get involved
<florian> q+
<fantasai> ... In all the details, there's a lot to get done
<dsinger> q+ to suggest we open the issue, and inline it, on standing for election, and leave the mail branch pull request pending
<jeff> Florian: It's a big job, but we have done a large piece.
<jeff> ... already landed the small parts
<jeff> ... left with TAG and Council
<jeff> q+
<jeff> ... another round of small details
<jeff> ... big ones are "this" and the Council
<jeff> ... not today, but we should be prepared to land them.
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to suggest we open the issue, and inline it, on standing for election, and leave the mail branch pull request pending
<jeff> David: We are in violent agreement
<jeff> ... Florian says it is hasty to land.
<jeff> ... let's file it; alert the TAG and AB; and put in the DF branch
<jeff> ... maybe we don't need a DF branch. Don't need a staging area.
<florian> q+
<fantasai> jeff: I'm delighted to hear from Florian that we're almost done
<fantasai> ... I hope that when we present this to the AC next month, we can express how we're almost done
<fantasai> ... and point out what remains to be done
<fantasai> ... We may be almost done in Florian's mind, but we have to get to a point that we're almost done in the community's mind
<fantasai> ... and I don't think we have sent any broad calls for coment yet
<fantasai> ... when we have just the 8 of us, 2 of whom admittedly forgot about exactly what's in the DF branch and what isn't
<fantasai> ... it's possible the others not here are also confused
<fantasai> ... so I think we need to focus on improving communications for TPAC
<fantasai> florian: That seems fair
<fantasai> florian: Two nuances for "almost done"
<jeff> Florian: That seems fair
<jeff> ... almost done finding "a" replacement for each mention of Director
<jeff> ... there will be tweaks to be made
<jeff> ... close to "a" process
<jeff> ... DF branch was important early on
<jeff> ... I needed to consolidate PRs that were outstanding
<jeff> ... so let's keep it since it exists
<jeff> ... yes, we should broaden requests
<jeff> ... we've had 2-3 TPAC presentations
<jeff> ... need to do it again
<jeff> Fantasai: Let's leave the PR open for review for next meeting
<jeff> Florian: Week before TPAC
<jeff> Fantasai: Leave it for the 8th
<jeff> ... if no objections we'll merge it on that day
<dsinger> q+ to ask how to handle the "must stand for election to be eligible for appointment for a second term"?
<jeff> ... we've been commissioned to put the text in the process
<jeff> ... specific issues should be filed
<jeff> ... not prevent us from landing this
<florian> q+
<jeff> ... election piece can be adjusted with issues
<jeff> ... gives us everything we need aside from Council
<jeff> ... agree with Jeff - need to improve our communications
<jeff> ... several more months of review and comment
<jeff> ... won't solve all DF problems
<fantasai> fantasai: Jeff, what do you suggest should be communicated to the AC before TPAC?
<fantasai> jeff: Since we're all together, good opportunity, to have info in presentation
<fantasai> ... might be good to give an update prior to TPAC
<fantasai> ... and reminder as we get back from vacation that we're working on important things, and ppl might want to up their participation level
<jeff> David: How should we handle the question of requiring people to stand for election
<jeff> ... should I file an issue; should Florian in-line>
<jeff> Fantasai: It is already open in the issue
<fantasai> https://github.com//issues/613
<jeff> Florian: Focused issues are good.
<jeff> David: OK, I'll file something.
<jeff> Florian: We want people to look at text, not PRs
<jeff> ... so for ease of review, we should land this in two weeks
<jeff> ... then another PR with an issue to go along whether to require an additional election
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to ask how to handle the "must stand for election to be eligible for appointment for a second term"?
<jeff> ... want to avoid a branch of branch
<jeff> Fantasai: Plan: Merge this next meeting
<jeff> ... because a dedicated issue for TAG continuity with two things in it
<jeff> ... Florian; post specifically the text you added to the issue and mention the f/u question whether the first reappointment requires failing an election
<jeff> ... all context together.
<jeff> Florian: Action accepted.
<jeff> action: florian to post text
<jeff> Florian: Reaction to the substance of the PR?
<jeff> ... thanks to Ted for the review
<jeff> ... comforting that people are reading it
<jeff> Ted: At least one
<jeff> Florian: One more than zero
<jeff> David: The appointment doesn't happen until ratification
<jeff> ... so maybe the team "nominates"
<jeff> Florian: I'll look at it
<jeff> David: Doesn't matter either way
<jeff> Florian: "Nominate" might be thought of elsewhere
<jeff> q+
<fantasai> jeff: English language is very rich, so maybe another word might be appropriate
<dsinger> ack je
<jeff> ... e.g. "propose"

[fantasai]

We are currently reviewing this text, and expect to merge it in at the next Process CG call.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Director-free TAG, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Merge #611 Director-free TAG

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Subtopic: Director-free TAG
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//pull/611
<fantasai> plh: 2 weeks ago ppl were reviewing text, and expect to merge at this meeting
<fantasai> ... did ppl hvae time to review, and can we merge?
<fantasai> florian: There were two comments from mnot that I think were okay to resolve with no change
<fantasai> ... in one he's asking if it should be explicit that ratification takes place before announcement
<fantasai> ... and next sentence says Team announces "ratified appointment", can't do that if not already ratified
<fantasai> ... And then the next question was if the appointments must be three, or can be fewer
<fantasai> ... the way the text is set up now, it's a SHOULD
<fantasai> ... in case failed to find someone
<fantasai> ... shouldn't invalidate TAG
<fantasai> ... I don't think TAG would be happy if TAG were permanently smaller
<fantasai> ... have a lot of work and being many is good
<fantasai> ... I think is fine as-is
<fantasai> ... so closing that comment no change
<fantasai> ... rest of comments were editorial tweaks
<fantasai> florian: still separate issue on consecutive terms, whether required to stand for election
<fantasai> ... but decided to pursue that in parallel, and change the text
<fantasai> florian: so unless someone has a complaint I think we're good to go
<fantasai> plh: that issue was 613
<fantasai> ... continuity of TAG appointments
<fantasai> fantasai: +1 to merging
<fantasai> ... also agree with the way Florian resolved the comments
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge #611 Director-free TAG
<fantasai> florian: Please don't click the button, need to untangle all the branches!

[TallTed]

Suggested change

	Participants in the [=TAG=] choose by consensus their Chair or co-Chairs;
	Participants in the [=TAG=] choose their Chair or co-Chairs by consensus;