Council Composition requirements include Tim Berners-Lee, TAG life member

[plehegar]

As part of using 5.6.2.4. Unanimous Short Circuit, we realize that @timbl was unintentionally left on the critical path of W3C Councils.
We should make sure @timbl isn't interested in being on the critical path and update the Process if that's the case.

[plehegar]

cc @swickr

[frivoal]

Assuming this is compatible with what @timbl wants, I suspect a solution to this problem is to change the status of Tim's participation in the TAG. Currently, he is listed as a "life member" of the TAG. Instead, I think we could draw inspiration from the status of the CEO in the AB, and go for something like:

As [Director Emeritus | Founding Director], Tim Berners Lee has, for life, a standing invitation to all regular TAG sessions.

This would enable participation to all standard TAG activities, without being on the critical path for Unanimous Short Circuit, or any other activity that might involve voting thresholds or quorum.

This would also mean that @timbl would not be a member of Councils in general (not just for Unanimous Short Circuit), but given that he has not participated so far, it is not clear to me that he wants to be part of them.

Based on the speeches given at the AC meeting in Sophia Antipolis, I would expect this change to be in accordance with @timbl's view of his role going forward, but getting confirmation would be nice.

[plehegar]

[[
plh: the council rules currently place TBL on the critical path for applying the unanimous short circuit. We never intended him to be on the critical path, so we should fix this in 2024. (Presuming TBL is okay with that.)

florian: I've made a specific suggestion, would like to know what TBL thinks.

plh: yes.

I think the alternative path would be to specifically make him an optional member of the Councils.

but remain a formal member of the TAG

plh: ...we will need to ensure the TAG is okay with your resolution as well.
]]
https://www.w3.org/2023/09/27-w3process-minutes.html#t04

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Council Composition requirements include Tim Berners-Lee, TAG life member, and agreed to the following:

• ACTION: florian draft all three options to present to Tim

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Subtopic: Council Composition requirements include Tim Berners-Lee, TAG life member
<fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/784
<florian> q+
<fantasai> florian: Narrow version of issue is, by being a TAG member, TimBL becomes one of the set of people that need to be unanimous for the short circuit of the Council to be used
<fantasai> florian: this was not intended, and seems unfortunate that TimBl is on the critical path of a short circuit
<fantasai> florian: One solution is to make a specific exception there, and say that TimBL can abstain
<fantasai> florian: Another option is that, while TAG works mostly works by consensus, they do vote on e.g. chairs. And maybe we don't need to include TimBL on those? So posibly we could make him a lifetime guest of the TAG, or other special status
<fantasai> ... then not a formal member of the TAG, so not a part of votes
<fantasai> florian: Ideally we'd get TimBL's feedback on it, but just want to make sure he's not formally tied in in places not intended
<fantasai> ... but input welcome
<fantasai> florian: extra piece of info: even in case of Council that doesn't use short circuit, TimBl has chosen not to participate
<fantasai> ... so not being a formal member of the TAG, he would no longer be invited to Councils; but so far he has chosen to stay away
<fantasai> ... I suspect he intends this way and not an accident
<fantasai> ... if you refer to the speech he made in Sophia-Antipolis last spring
<fantasai> ... he explicitly reassured everyone that it's OK that we make decisions without him
<TallTed> q+
<fantasai> ... so making him a Director-emeritus invited to TAG for life matches his expectation better
<florian> s/so making him/so I think making him
<fantasai> TallTed: I agree it appears he doesn't intend to participate, but maybe related to the issues that were raised
<fantasai> ... would be good to have explicit confirmation of what he intends
<fantasai> ... I'm OK with him going either way
<Dingwei> +1
<fantasai> ... but some concerns due to indeterminate fate of SOLID WG
<fantasai> ... which he's definitely interested in, unclear whether he'll play his W3C role
<fantasai> florian: I think plh took an action to check with him, but haven't heard back
<fantasai> fantasai: Got two options, should we draft one (which one) or draft both, and ask him?
<fantasai> florian: We could draft both, and give him the option in one shot
<fantasai> fantasai: any other ideas?
<fantasai> florian: A possible third path, keep him as a formal member of TAG, but to broaden the exception to not just short-circuits, but not include him in the Councils in general
<fantasai> fantasai: maybe we go for all three then?
<cwilso> +1
<fantasai> ACTION: florian draft all three options to present to Tim

[frivoal]

Made three potential pull requests to address this issue. From the broadest to the narrowest: #791, #792, #793.

After checking that the wording in each is reasonably phrased, we should check with Tim to see if he has a preference.

[hober]

Between the three PRs, I prefer #792. That said, please do see my suggested rewording of it.