Ratification of TAG appointments

[mnot]

(from #315)

Currently, the draft process has the Team making the appointments, with only one counterbalance:

The Team's choice of appointee(s) is subject to ratification by secret ballot by two thirds of the TAG. Having a body ratify such a large proportion of its own membership seems problematic to me; it reinforces the 'insider' tendency. It makes it harder for the Team to 'shake things up' if it feels it necessary.

Why not have another body, such as the AB ratify the selections here?

[dwsinger]

I see your concern. I think part of the reasoning was that if the seats are to ensure a good balance of skills and viewpoints on the TAG, especially from a technical perspective, then the TAG themselves are probably best placed to assess what's missing and whether the proposed appointments fill those gaps.

[cwilso]

It could be said as "The Team, with input from the TAG, chooses the appointees; these choices are then ratified by the AB." I'm not entirely certain it helps, but 1) I agree with David, the perspective from the TAG themselves is important, and 2) we use this kind of approach to select AB chair: https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#ABParticipation says "With the input of the AB, the Team appoints the Chair."

[mnot]

+1 to @cwilso's solution -- agree that TAG input is absolutely necessary, but they shouldn't be the decider.

[cwilso]

(I should have said: I'm ambivalent about the AB having this particular decider role; I think it's fine to do so, but I don't have a huge problem with it being largely between the Team and the TAG itself either.)

[fantasai]

I'm not really convinced that an AB ratification step is helpful. What would it be solving? The reason to have a ratification step is to make sure that the Team appointment doesn't go off the rails, but the AB is in a much worse position to be able to judge that than the rest of the TAG. AB ratification is highly unlikely to catch problems like:

• this person's technical philosophy is in opposition to the rest of the (mostly elected) TAG
• this person has an impressive resume but was absolutely useless when placed on the TAG last time
• this person is great, but doesn't fill the large gap in expertise that we have in X
• this person is obnoxious and disruptive to work with

Getting such personal concerns to jump the gap from the TAG to the entire AB is very difficult.

It's one thing if the AC wants to elect such a person. But it's a failure if the Team appoints such a person.

[swickr]

While I agree that the examples @fantasai listed are difficult to communicate between the TAG and the AB, my understanding is that ratification is simply a "yes" or "no". If the AB is aware of considerations that it believes were not discussed between the Team and TAG it can ask for clarification and then decide yes/no. But ratification should otherwise not involve conversation; e.g. the AB should not decline to ratify on the basis that it felt other individuals should be appointed.

This is different from "TAG ratifies"; the TAG should not have the authority to veto a Team choice after appropriate conversation between the Team and the TAG. The TAG can escalate to the AB for AB consideration when the AB decided to ratify or not. I'm agreeing with @cwilso's proposal.

[dwsinger]

If it's ratification, then I lean to allowing the (non-appointed) TAG to ratify. They are simply checking "are these people suitable, could we work with them, do they plug our gaps, have the team given it reasonable consideration and done appropriate consultation?". Some of these the AB could indeed answer, but…

I don't think appointment should be how we "shake things up"; that's what elections are for. Appointments are almost the opposite – dealing with gaps and rough edges.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Ratification of TAG appointments, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Merge PR #718

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> florian: We decided in the past that the three TAG appointees are appointed by the Team and ratified by the TAG
<fantasai> ... mnot was concerned this would allow for too much of an insider effect
<fantasai> ... the AB agreed, and modified to ratification of the AB and the TAG
<fantasai> ... wording is delegated to us, and I think it does the job
<fantasai> -> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/718
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge PR #718
<fantasai> florian: having received some review comments on the wording, I feel more confident that we got it right :)