Forbid the Team from AB/TAG service

[martinthomson]

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.

---

Preview | Diff

[dwsinger]

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?

[cwilso]

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.

[dwsinger]

Ah, OK, agreed, that a change of affiliation to the team should cause something to happen.

[fantasai]

@dwsinger Something already does happen: we trigger an affiliation change election. I think that’s good enough for the change of affiliation case.