Synchronize Advisory Committee representative and Consortium Member Representative #937
Conversation
frivoal
added
DO NOT MERGE: not agreed yet
Needs AB Feedback
tantek
left a comment
tantek
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems like a reasonable step forward.
I'd request that the editor consider the impact of these changes on the "alternate representative" role to make sure that role still works as expected/desired. I trust the editor's judgment on this interaction.
|
The proposed text has mentions member associations, and therefore has a dependency on https://github.com/w3c/board/issues/249 |
|
The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed The full IRC log of that discussion<brent> subtopic: https://github.com//pull/937<brent> Github: https://github.com//pull/937 <Ian> Florian: There was a recent discussion that did not yet converge. I think there is going to be a survey to gather more information. <Ian> ...let's postpone this one. <Ian> Brent: Yes, Board and AB are looking at this. |
…epresentative See w3c/AB-memberonly#247 Co-authored-by: fantasai <fantasai.bugs@inkedblade.net>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
The Process only needs to concern itself with the fact that the bylaws define that Consortium Members have Consortium Member Representatives, and that some Members (in the sense of the Process) do not qualify to be Consortium Members (and thus don't have a C.M.Rep.). It does not need to concern itself with why the bylaws exclude some organisations from being Consortium Members, and therefore reducing the interdependency is desirable: this allows the bylaws to evolve the criteria if needed, without needing any revision in the Process.
|
This PR is still a work-in-progress, and it is neither certain that we will decide to do this, nor that these are the exact right words for doing it. But in the spirit of trying to see what it would look like if we did, I have made an additional commit (4634789) to reduce the coupling with the bylaws. The Process only needs to concern itself with the fact that the bylaws define that Consortium Members have Consortium Member Representatives, and that some Members (in the sense of the Process) do not qualify to be Consortium Members (and thus don't have a C.M.Rep.). It does not need to concern itself with why the bylaws exclude some organizations from being Consortium Members, and therefore reducing the interdependence is desirable: this allows the bylaws to evolve the criteria if needed (including possibly to address https://github.com/w3c/board/issues/249), without needing any revision in the Process. I also made a minor edit, in response to @t in #937 (review), to clarify what that means for the alternate AC Rep. |
6 participants
See https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/247
Preview | Diff